 "The complaint that the Honourable Dr. Prasad should have disclosed his superannuation is debatable. Since 2014, the Honourable Dr. Prasad has provided his declaration to the Fijian Elections Office without including superannuation information, and there is no evidence before FICAC that the Supervisor of Elections or the Electoral Commission ever advised Honourable Dr. Prasad that his declarations were insufficient or requested that superannuation information be included in the declaration form." The former FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali |  |
Why We Are Exposing the “Superannuation Excuse” Behind the Closure of the Biman Prasad File. And Why Superannuation Must Be Declared under PPAct of 2013
Fijileaks is publishing this piece because the public has a right to know how a serious complaint alleging undeclared directorships, hidden shareholdings, and benefits linked to Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd) was quietly shut down by the former FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali, using a completely irrelevant technicality about superannuation.
The complaint was never about superannuation. It was about whether the NFP leader and former Finance Minister Biman Prasad failed to disclose directorships, concealed business interests with his cousin Sunil Chand, and he and his wife Rajni Kaushal Chand received financial benefits that should have been reported under Section 24 of the Political Parties Act.
Yet Barbara Malimali latched onto the line that “superannuation is not required to be declared” and used that single point to bury the entire "FICAC File". One irrelevant argument was allowed to extinguish multiple, far more serious allegations. Why? Who benefited? And what was she trying to avoid investigating?
But there is a deeper issue. Fijileaks argues that superannuation should be included in statutory declarations in the first place.
Why? Because superannuation is not just a retirement nest egg. It is a financial asset capable of being manipulated, inflated, or used to disguise benefits. A third party can quietly top up a politician’s FNPF account without it ever appearing in bank records. Employers, contractors, or political donors can channel “contributions” that look clean on paper but function as hidden payments.
In a country where FNPF is one of the most powerful financial institutions, politicians who influence FNPF policy, appointments, or investments should not be allowed to hide behind a loophole. Superannuation, like bank accounts, shares, and directorships, carries potential conflicts of interest and must form part of any honest integrity regime.
So we write this because the public has been misled into believing there was “no case to answer” against Biman Prasad when in fact the real allegations were untouched, and the superannuation excuse was a convenient smokescreen. A device. A cover. A way to shutter a politically sensitive file without confronting the actual breaches.
Fijileaks will not allow selective reasoning or technical loopholes to bury the truth. Fiji deserves to know whether the superannuation argument was a genuine interpretation of the law or a deliberate misuse of authority designed to protect a senior Cabinet minister from charges, as FICAC was going to charge Prasad on 5 September 2024.
Fijileaks is publishing this piece because the public has a right to know how a serious complaint alleging undeclared directorships, hidden shareholdings, and benefits linked to Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd) was quietly shut down by the former FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali, using a completely irrelevant technicality about superannuation.
The complaint was never about superannuation. It was about whether the NFP leader and former Finance Minister Biman Prasad failed to disclose directorships, concealed business interests with his cousin Sunil Chand, and he and his wife Rajni Kaushal Chand received financial benefits that should have been reported under Section 24 of the Political Parties Act.
Yet Barbara Malimali latched onto the line that “superannuation is not required to be declared” and used that single point to bury the entire "FICAC File". One irrelevant argument was allowed to extinguish multiple, far more serious allegations. Why? Who benefited? And what was she trying to avoid investigating?
But there is a deeper issue. Fijileaks argues that superannuation should be included in statutory declarations in the first place.
Why? Because superannuation is not just a retirement nest egg. It is a financial asset capable of being manipulated, inflated, or used to disguise benefits. A third party can quietly top up a politician’s FNPF account without it ever appearing in bank records. Employers, contractors, or political donors can channel “contributions” that look clean on paper but function as hidden payments.
In a country where FNPF is one of the most powerful financial institutions, politicians who influence FNPF policy, appointments, or investments should not be allowed to hide behind a loophole. Superannuation, like bank accounts, shares, and directorships, carries potential conflicts of interest and must form part of any honest integrity regime.
So we write this because the public has been misled into believing there was “no case to answer” against Biman Prasad when in fact the real allegations were untouched, and the superannuation excuse was a convenient smokescreen. A device. A cover. A way to shutter a politically sensitive file without confronting the actual breaches.
Fijileaks will not allow selective reasoning or technical loopholes to bury the truth. Fiji deserves to know whether the superannuation argument was a genuine interpretation of the law or a deliberate misuse of authority designed to protect a senior Cabinet minister from charges, as FICAC was going to charge Prasad on 5 September 2024.
Fijileaks Editorial: Whether Superannuation qualify as "Material Benefits"?
Whether superannuation benefits received by political party office-holders (e.g., MPs and party leaders) qualify as “material benefits” under Section 18 of the Political Parties Act 2013, and if so, whether the existing disclosure forms and regulatory guidelines adequately require such benefits to be reported.
The answer is in the affirmative. Superannuation is a material financial benefit and should be disclosed under Section 18, even if not explicitly listed. However, due to gaps in declaration form design and guidance, there is ambiguity, which can be resolved through statutory reform or regulatory clarification.
Section 18 – General Duty of Disclosure
Section 18(1):
“A political party shall… provide the Registrar with a statement of its assets and liabilities, including all sources of funds, donations, and contributions in kind.”
Section 18(2)(b):
“…any financial or material support received by the party or any of its officials from any other source.”
These provisions apply to benefits received by officials, even if not originating from the party or a formal salary.
Section 24 – Individual Office-holder Declarations
Office-holders must provide annual declarations of assets, income, and liabilities.
While superannuation is not named, the broad obligation to declare all financial interests logically includes:
Superannuation as a Material Benefit: Ongoing Income Source
Superannuation constitutes monthly or lump-sum payments, similar to other income streams. If received during a person’s time in office, it meets the threshold of a financial benefit, regardless of when the entitlement arose.
Public Resource Origin
When the superannuation:
It is materially distinguishable from private income and should be declared, especially under a law designed to protect political integrity and transparency.
Purpose of the Act
The purpose of the Act, as derived from the long title and statutory scheme, is to:
Current Gap: Lack of Specific Guidance
While the law implicitly requires such disclosure, the prescribed declaration forms:
This has led to inconsistencies, including:
Recommendation: Legal and Regulatory Reform
To resolve ambiguity and ensure consistent enforcement:
Legislative Amendment (If required)
Transitional Declaration Order
Conclusion
There is a strong legal basis for requiring superannuation to be disclosed under the Political Parties Act 2013. The fact that Biman Prasad failed to do so, even if not malicious, reveals a regulatory gap.
This memo recommends that Parliament act to:
Whether superannuation benefits received by political party office-holders (e.g., MPs and party leaders) qualify as “material benefits” under Section 18 of the Political Parties Act 2013, and if so, whether the existing disclosure forms and regulatory guidelines adequately require such benefits to be reported.
The answer is in the affirmative. Superannuation is a material financial benefit and should be disclosed under Section 18, even if not explicitly listed. However, due to gaps in declaration form design and guidance, there is ambiguity, which can be resolved through statutory reform or regulatory clarification.
Section 18 – General Duty of Disclosure
Section 18(1):
“A political party shall… provide the Registrar with a statement of its assets and liabilities, including all sources of funds, donations, and contributions in kind.”
Section 18(2)(b):
“…any financial or material support received by the party or any of its officials from any other source.”
These provisions apply to benefits received by officials, even if not originating from the party or a formal salary.
Section 24 – Individual Office-holder Declarations
Office-holders must provide annual declarations of assets, income, and liabilities.
While superannuation is not named, the broad obligation to declare all financial interests logically includes:
- Pensions
- Deferred compensation
- Continuing income from public or quasi-public institution
Superannuation as a Material Benefit: Ongoing Income Source
Superannuation constitutes monthly or lump-sum payments, similar to other income streams. If received during a person’s time in office, it meets the threshold of a financial benefit, regardless of when the entitlement arose.
Public Resource Origin
When the superannuation:
- Is funded (in part) by public institutions, like the University of the South Pacific (USP),
- Includes employer top-ups or enhanced packages, or
- Is not automatically available to the general population.
It is materially distinguishable from private income and should be declared, especially under a law designed to protect political integrity and transparency.
Purpose of the Act
The purpose of the Act, as derived from the long title and statutory scheme, is to:
- Promote financial transparency
- Prevent undue influence or secret enrichment
- Enable public accountability
Current Gap: Lack of Specific Guidance
While the law implicitly requires such disclosure, the prescribed declaration forms:
- Do not contain a line-item for superannuation, pension, or retirement benefits
- Do not clarify whether prior entitlements must be included
- Have not been updated to reflect changing public expectations
This has led to inconsistencies, including:
- Non-disclosure by senior MPs such as Biman Prasad since 2014
- No prosecution or penalty, due to FICAC’s determination that the omission was technical, not willful
Recommendation: Legal and Regulatory Reform
To resolve ambiguity and ensure consistent enforcement:
- Revise declaration forms to explicitly list “pension, superannuation, or retirement income” as a required entry.
- Issue guidance to all political parties clarifying that deferred or ongoing benefits must be declared under Section 18 and Section 24.
Legislative Amendment (If required)
- Introduce an amendment to Section 18(2) to include:
“This includes, but is not limited to, salaries, allowances, pensions, gratuities, superannuation, retirement funds, or any other benefit or entitlement derived from public office, past or present.”
Transitional Declaration Order
- Require all current office-holders to submit a supplemental declaration addressing any previously undisclosed superannuation or pension benefit, without penalty if submitted in good faith.
Conclusion
There is a strong legal basis for requiring superannuation to be disclosed under the Political Parties Act 2013. The fact that Biman Prasad failed to do so, even if not malicious, reveals a regulatory gap.
This memo recommends that Parliament act to:
- Clarify the disclosure duty,
- Reform the declaration process,
- Restore confidence in equal enforcement of political financial accountability.
Did Barbara Malimali Use Superannuation as a Pretext to Close the Biman Prasad Investigation? A Case for Abuse of Office
The decision by Barbara Malimali to close the complaint file against Biman Prasad on the grounds that he “was not required to declare his superannuation”, despite strong evidence he had allegedly committed multiple offences, demands urgent police scrutiny.
The decision by Barbara Malimali to close the complaint file against Biman Prasad on the grounds that he “was not required to declare his superannuation”, despite strong evidence he had allegedly committed multiple offences, demands urgent police scrutiny.
From Fijileaks Archive
"It was not right for you to tell the second respondent [Police Commissioner Sitiveni Qiliho] to stay away from investigating the alleged mismanagement of taxpayer’s fund at the University of the South Pacific by top senior officials, who appear to be citizens of Fiji. The second respondent was the Commissioner of Police. The second respondent’s brief as Police Commissioner was guided by section 5 of the Police Act 1965. It was mandatory for the second respondent to prevent and detect crimes and enforce the criminal law of the Republic of Fiji. The police were investigating the USP mismanagement of funds at the time.
The police had sought the Director of Public Prosecution’s assistance. He had recommended the caution interview of the suspects. By telling the second respondent to stay away from the USP investigation, you have in a sense effectively sabotaged the police investigation. To this day, the investigation had not been completed. Your action was inconsistent with the oath of your office.
Breach of the Public’s Trust.
At the material time, the second respondent was the Commissioner of Police of the Republic of Fiji. By virtue of section 129 (3) of the Constitution, he commands the Fiji Police Force and is responsible for its administration, organization, deployment and its control, and in those matters, he is not subject to anyone’s control. He is the top police officer and it is his task to lead the police maintain law and order. By virtue of section 5 of the Police Act 1965, he leads the police in preserving the peace, protecting life and property, prevent and detect crime and to enforce the criminal law of this country.
However, when he, on 15 July 2020, at Suva in the Central Division, directed the Director of the Criminal Investigations Department Serupepeli Neiko and Inspector Reshmi Dass to stop investigations into the police complaint involving CID/HQ PEP 12/07/2019, he was certainly abusing his office, which was an arbitrary act, prejudicial to the rights of USP.
What he did was a direct violation of section 5 of the Police Act 1965 and as such, was a breach of the public trust in him.
(ii) By acceding to the first respondent’s request to stay away from the USP investigations reported in CID/HQ PEP 12/07/2019, the second respondent violated his constitutional independence as guaranteed by section 129 (5) of the 2013 Constitution.
In sentencing you [Bainimarama}, I am guided by section 4 (1) of the Sentencing and Penalties Act 2009, that is, to punish you in a manner which is just in all the circumstances; to protect the community; to deter others from committing similar offences and to signify that the court and community denounce what you did in Count No. 1. I start with a sentence of 6 months imprisonment. For the aggravating factor, I add 2 ½ years making a total of 3 years imprisonment. For all the mitigating factors, I deduct 2 years, leaving a balance of 1 year imprisonment. On Count No. 1, I sentence you to 1 year imprisonment.
The police had sought the Director of Public Prosecution’s assistance. He had recommended the caution interview of the suspects. By telling the second respondent to stay away from the USP investigation, you have in a sense effectively sabotaged the police investigation. To this day, the investigation had not been completed. Your action was inconsistent with the oath of your office.
Breach of the Public’s Trust.
At the material time, the second respondent was the Commissioner of Police of the Republic of Fiji. By virtue of section 129 (3) of the Constitution, he commands the Fiji Police Force and is responsible for its administration, organization, deployment and its control, and in those matters, he is not subject to anyone’s control. He is the top police officer and it is his task to lead the police maintain law and order. By virtue of section 5 of the Police Act 1965, he leads the police in preserving the peace, protecting life and property, prevent and detect crime and to enforce the criminal law of this country.
However, when he, on 15 July 2020, at Suva in the Central Division, directed the Director of the Criminal Investigations Department Serupepeli Neiko and Inspector Reshmi Dass to stop investigations into the police complaint involving CID/HQ PEP 12/07/2019, he was certainly abusing his office, which was an arbitrary act, prejudicial to the rights of USP.
What he did was a direct violation of section 5 of the Police Act 1965 and as such, was a breach of the public trust in him.
(ii) By acceding to the first respondent’s request to stay away from the USP investigations reported in CID/HQ PEP 12/07/2019, the second respondent violated his constitutional independence as guaranteed by section 129 (5) of the 2013 Constitution.
In sentencing you [Bainimarama}, I am guided by section 4 (1) of the Sentencing and Penalties Act 2009, that is, to punish you in a manner which is just in all the circumstances; to protect the community; to deter others from committing similar offences and to signify that the court and community denounce what you did in Count No. 1. I start with a sentence of 6 months imprisonment. For the aggravating factor, I add 2 ½ years making a total of 3 years imprisonment. For all the mitigating factors, I deduct 2 years, leaving a balance of 1 year imprisonment. On Count No. 1, I sentence you to 1 year imprisonment.
 |  |
