  In the annals of Fiji’s long, troubled relationship between power and accountability, a new chapter has quietly written itself inside the Fiji National University’s School of Law. It is a story of frightened students, an alleged rogue lecturer, an indifferent bureaucracy, and a Head of School who, rather than defending the vulnerable, allegedly presided over, and participated in, the silencing of dissent. A 70-page confidential report by the Fiji National University Law Students Association (FNULSA), obtained by Fijileaks, reads like an indictment of a law school in moral and administrative collapse. It documents a climate of fear, humiliation, and retaliation. It exposes a pattern of harassment by the lecturer (name withheld) ________, and an even more disturbing pattern of institutional interference by senior administrators entrusted with safeguarding student welfare. |
 |
It is a story that, had it emerged in the corridors of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company (CSR) in the 1920s, would have felt familiar: the powerless begging for fairness; the powerful responding with delay, deflection, and disdain.
But this is not 1920. It is 2025. And the institution is not a plantation company. It is a university, funded by Fiji’s taxpayers, meant to be a sanctuary for learning, integrity, and the rule of law.
Fijileaks lays bare the facts.
Harassment in the Classroom: The Lecturer Who Left Students in Tears
The report describes lecturer _______ as a man who wielded classroom authority like a club, not a tool for education:
In any civilised academic environment, such allegations would trigger immediate formal investigation, suspension pending inquiry, and psychological support for affected students.
Instead, the Head of School, Ana Rokomokoti, allegedly responded with verbal counselling and pleas for students to “be understanding” because “he has a family.”
This is the same logic we have seen throughout Pacific institutional culture: the protection of the insider over the rights of the victim.
And always, always, the promise of “due process” that never arrives.
The Cover Up: Delay as a Tool of Suppression
When complaints mounted, the administrative machinery at FNU began to operate with the precision of a Soviet-era ministry: slow, opaque, and designed to exhaust the complainant.
Human Resources only contacted students after the semester had ended, when the complainants were scattered, exhausted, and less able to push for action.
In Fiji we know this tactic well: Delay is the handmaiden of impunity.
It is the same formula used to bury corruption complaints, disciplinary reports, and internal audits. Here, it was deployed against 19-and 20-year-olds whose only mistake was to demand dignity in the classroom.
Targetting of FNULSA: A Student Association Treated as an Enemy of the State
What elevates this report from a teacher misconduct case to a full-blown institutional scandal is the systematic targeting of FNULSA, the law students’ elected representative body.
Incident 1: The Silencing Order
When FNULSA attempted to represent the Year 2 students, as required by its constitution, the Head of School told the Association: “Your continued input is no longer needed.”
In one sentence, the HOS extinguished the mandate of the only body designed to protect students from precisely the kind of abuse being reported.
It was a political move, and a dangerous one.
Incident 2: Public Humiliation at Orientation
At the 2025 Orientation, the HOS allegedly interrupted the FNULSA Treasurer, ordered him to sit, and warned new students: “Be careful who you listen to.”
This is the language of authoritarian systems, not universities. When power fears scrutiny, it discredits the messenger.
Incident 3: Bureaucratic Sabotage
The Acting Head of Department then invented a rule, nonexistent in any FNU statute, banning FNULSA from emailing faculty using non-FNU addresses.
When FNULSA complied, the HOD summoned them and tried to seize control of the EU-funded Inter-Tertiary Moot Competition, insisting it be hosted by the School, not the Association.
No written directive was ever provided. Because power that fears documentation fears accountability.
The parallels with Fiji’s political history are unmistakable: when institutions rot, the first casualty is always the independent voice.
Academic Mismanagement: A Law School That Cannot Follow the Law
The report details academic failings that would be unthinkable at any reputable institution:
In one case, a student’s posted grade (17/30) was corrected to 25/30 only after challenge. How many mistakes remain unchallenged?
FNU’s own policies were violated with impunity. Students’ futures - scholarships, GPA, job prospects - were gambled away in a haze of academic chaos.
And still, no accountability.
Ethics Taught Without Ethics
Perhaps the most tragic irony lies in the Legal Ethics course.
When students raised the issue of institutional inaction, the lecturer claimed FNULSA had gone “to the media” - a complete falsehood.
Shortly after this confrontation, the FNULSA student's marks mysteriously vanished.
If true, this is not merely victimisation. It is retaliation, a grave academic offence.
It is also the oldest method of silencing dissent in Fiji: punish the ringleader to frighten the rest.
The Political Shadow
The report notes that:
The Broader Context: A University Acting Like a Closed Shop
This scandal is not about one lecturer. It is not even about one Head of School. It is about a public institution that:
It is the same pattern we have exposed for years across Fiji’s institutions: power without scrutiny becomes impunity; impunity becomes culture; culture becomes abuse.
FNULSA’S Final Word, And A Warning
The report ends with a demand for:
For once, students are speaking the language of accountability, the language Fiji’s institutions have forgotten.
The question now is whether FNU’s leadership will continue the cycle of suppression, or confront the truth it has avoided.
If history is any guide, we know what happens when institutions ignore their own rot.
But this is not 1920. It is 2025. And the institution is not a plantation company. It is a university, funded by Fiji’s taxpayers, meant to be a sanctuary for learning, integrity, and the rule of law.
Fijileaks lays bare the facts.
Harassment in the Classroom: The Lecturer Who Left Students in Tears
The report describes lecturer _______ as a man who wielded classroom authority like a club, not a tool for education:
- asking struggling students who paid their fees,
- telling others they did not deserve to be enrolled,
- publicly shaming female students during presentations,
- delivering hour-long tirades over poor marks, with students fleeing the room in tears.
In any civilised academic environment, such allegations would trigger immediate formal investigation, suspension pending inquiry, and psychological support for affected students.
Instead, the Head of School, Ana Rokomokoti, allegedly responded with verbal counselling and pleas for students to “be understanding” because “he has a family.”
This is the same logic we have seen throughout Pacific institutional culture: the protection of the insider over the rights of the victim.
And always, always, the promise of “due process” that never arrives.
The Cover Up: Delay as a Tool of Suppression
When complaints mounted, the administrative machinery at FNU began to operate with the precision of a Soviet-era ministry: slow, opaque, and designed to exhaust the complainant.
Human Resources only contacted students after the semester had ended, when the complainants were scattered, exhausted, and less able to push for action.
In Fiji we know this tactic well: Delay is the handmaiden of impunity.
It is the same formula used to bury corruption complaints, disciplinary reports, and internal audits. Here, it was deployed against 19-and 20-year-olds whose only mistake was to demand dignity in the classroom.
Targetting of FNULSA: A Student Association Treated as an Enemy of the State
What elevates this report from a teacher misconduct case to a full-blown institutional scandal is the systematic targeting of FNULSA, the law students’ elected representative body.
Incident 1: The Silencing Order
When FNULSA attempted to represent the Year 2 students, as required by its constitution, the Head of School told the Association: “Your continued input is no longer needed.”
In one sentence, the HOS extinguished the mandate of the only body designed to protect students from precisely the kind of abuse being reported.
It was a political move, and a dangerous one.
Incident 2: Public Humiliation at Orientation
At the 2025 Orientation, the HOS allegedly interrupted the FNULSA Treasurer, ordered him to sit, and warned new students: “Be careful who you listen to.”
This is the language of authoritarian systems, not universities. When power fears scrutiny, it discredits the messenger.
Incident 3: Bureaucratic Sabotage
The Acting Head of Department then invented a rule, nonexistent in any FNU statute, banning FNULSA from emailing faculty using non-FNU addresses.
When FNULSA complied, the HOD summoned them and tried to seize control of the EU-funded Inter-Tertiary Moot Competition, insisting it be hosted by the School, not the Association.
No written directive was ever provided. Because power that fears documentation fears accountability.
The parallels with Fiji’s political history are unmistakable: when institutions rot, the first casualty is always the independent voice.
Academic Mismanagement: A Law School That Cannot Follow the Law
The report details academic failings that would be unthinkable at any reputable institution:
- assessments announced with 24–48 hours’ notice,
- marking criteria that contradicted the exam instructions,
- fictional statutes penalised for lack of real case law,
- mid-semester marks released after teaching ended,
- errors in publicly posted grades,
- repeated lecturer absences,
- a presentation scheduled on a public holiday.
In one case, a student’s posted grade (17/30) was corrected to 25/30 only after challenge. How many mistakes remain unchallenged?
FNU’s own policies were violated with impunity. Students’ futures - scholarships, GPA, job prospects - were gambled away in a haze of academic chaos.
And still, no accountability.
Ethics Taught Without Ethics
Perhaps the most tragic irony lies in the Legal Ethics course.
When students raised the issue of institutional inaction, the lecturer claimed FNULSA had gone “to the media” - a complete falsehood.
Shortly after this confrontation, the FNULSA student's marks mysteriously vanished.
If true, this is not merely victimisation. It is retaliation, a grave academic offence.
It is also the oldest method of silencing dissent in Fiji: punish the ringleader to frighten the rest.
The Political Shadow
The report notes that:
- The Head of School was a SODELPA election candidate.
- The lecturer at the centre of the scandal was involved in SODELPA’s campaign.
- Were conflicts of interest declared?
- Was there political influence in recruitment?
- Did political loyalties shape the handling — or burying — of student complaints?
The Broader Context: A University Acting Like a Closed Shop
This scandal is not about one lecturer. It is not even about one Head of School. It is about a public institution that:
- shields staff from accountability,
- silences students who challenge it,
- mismanages academic processes, and
- treats its own regulations as optional.
It is the same pattern we have exposed for years across Fiji’s institutions: power without scrutiny becomes impunity; impunity becomes culture; culture becomes abuse.
FNULSA’S Final Word, And A Warning
The report ends with a demand for:
- an independent investigation,
- reassessment of affected grades,
- protection for student leaders,
- and escalation to state oversight bodies, including FICAC, citing possible abuse of trust in a taxpayer-funded entity.
For once, students are speaking the language of accountability, the language Fiji’s institutions have forgotten.
The question now is whether FNU’s leadership will continue the cycle of suppression, or confront the truth it has avoided.
If history is any guide, we know what happens when institutions ignore their own rot.
 |   |
Questions Raised Over Governance and Academic Processes Linked to FNU Law School Head Ana Rokomokoti
A separate confidential whistleblower report submitted to Fiji National University (FNU) has brought renewed attention to the role and decision-making of Ana Rokomokoti, the FNU's Head of the School of Law, Ethics and Governance.
The document, compiled by individuals seeking protection under FNU’s whistleblower policy, outlines a series of concerns about academic management, staff appointments, and internal processes associated with the law faculty under her tenure.
The claims remain allegations and have not been tested or confirmed by any independent authority.
According to the report, contributors believe that several academic and administrative decisions made under Rokomokoti’s leadership departed from established university procedures.
A key area of concern relates to her promotion to Assistant Professor, which the authors state was granted without the usual advertising process and, in their view, without meeting the university’s stated minimum qualification requirements. The report also notes that the criteria for academic promotions allow for discretion in exceptional cases, and that no official explanation has been provided publicly regarding the basis for her elevation.
The whistleblower document further outlines concerns about staff recruitment and internal appointments at the School of Law, alleging that some teaching roles were filled without open advertisement. These matters are presented as questions of process rather than personal criticism, with the complainants emphasising that transparent recruitment is a key component of academic governance.
Another significant issue raised relates to the handling of student grievances. Several students reported difficulties in seeking redress for alleged harassment or unprofessional conduct by a former staff member. The report claims that these complaints were not resolved in a timely manner, and that some students perceived a reluctance from faculty leadership, at the time overseen by Rokomokoti, to escalate the matter through formal channels. It remains unclear what internal steps were taken, and FNU has not publicly commented on the specific case.
The report also refers to Rokomokoti’s candidacy in the 2022 General Election, questioning whether her participation was managed in alignment with rules governing political activity by staff of publicly funded institutions. The authors state that employees of such institutions are generally expected to resign or take leave before contesting national elections. They acknowledge, however, that internal legal advice or administrative approvals may have been sought and that no public findings have been made.
More broadly, the document situates these concerns within a pattern of what the authors describe as inconsistencies in academic delivery and assessment processes at the School of Law. These include the late release of marks, changes to assessment formats with limited notice, and instances in which rules on academic progression or attendance were perceived to have been applied unevenly. The report argues that leadership plays a central role in ensuring predictable and fair processes across student cohorts.
None of the allegations in the whistleblower report have been independently verified, and individuals named in the document, including Rokomokoti, have not issued public responses. The report’s authors have called for an external review involving independent academic experts and relevant statutory bodies to objectively assess the matters raised.
As with any whistleblower disclosure, the claims represent the perspective of those who compiled the report and should not be taken as findings of fact. The issues raised, however, underscore wider concerns about governance, transparency, and quality assurance in legal education, areas which stakeholders across Fiji have long viewed as essential to preserving confidence in the profession and the institutions that train its future members.
Right of Reply Note:
Attempts were made to obtain comment from the Ministry of Education, the Fiji National University, and Ms Ana Rokomokoti regarding the matters raised in the whistleblower report. As of publication time, no responses had been received.
Fijileaks will publish any reply or clarification in full if provided: [email protected]
A separate confidential whistleblower report submitted to Fiji National University (FNU) has brought renewed attention to the role and decision-making of Ana Rokomokoti, the FNU's Head of the School of Law, Ethics and Governance.
The document, compiled by individuals seeking protection under FNU’s whistleblower policy, outlines a series of concerns about academic management, staff appointments, and internal processes associated with the law faculty under her tenure.
The claims remain allegations and have not been tested or confirmed by any independent authority.
According to the report, contributors believe that several academic and administrative decisions made under Rokomokoti’s leadership departed from established university procedures.
A key area of concern relates to her promotion to Assistant Professor, which the authors state was granted without the usual advertising process and, in their view, without meeting the university’s stated minimum qualification requirements. The report also notes that the criteria for academic promotions allow for discretion in exceptional cases, and that no official explanation has been provided publicly regarding the basis for her elevation.
The whistleblower document further outlines concerns about staff recruitment and internal appointments at the School of Law, alleging that some teaching roles were filled without open advertisement. These matters are presented as questions of process rather than personal criticism, with the complainants emphasising that transparent recruitment is a key component of academic governance.
Another significant issue raised relates to the handling of student grievances. Several students reported difficulties in seeking redress for alleged harassment or unprofessional conduct by a former staff member. The report claims that these complaints were not resolved in a timely manner, and that some students perceived a reluctance from faculty leadership, at the time overseen by Rokomokoti, to escalate the matter through formal channels. It remains unclear what internal steps were taken, and FNU has not publicly commented on the specific case.
The report also refers to Rokomokoti’s candidacy in the 2022 General Election, questioning whether her participation was managed in alignment with rules governing political activity by staff of publicly funded institutions. The authors state that employees of such institutions are generally expected to resign or take leave before contesting national elections. They acknowledge, however, that internal legal advice or administrative approvals may have been sought and that no public findings have been made.
More broadly, the document situates these concerns within a pattern of what the authors describe as inconsistencies in academic delivery and assessment processes at the School of Law. These include the late release of marks, changes to assessment formats with limited notice, and instances in which rules on academic progression or attendance were perceived to have been applied unevenly. The report argues that leadership plays a central role in ensuring predictable and fair processes across student cohorts.
None of the allegations in the whistleblower report have been independently verified, and individuals named in the document, including Rokomokoti, have not issued public responses. The report’s authors have called for an external review involving independent academic experts and relevant statutory bodies to objectively assess the matters raised.
As with any whistleblower disclosure, the claims represent the perspective of those who compiled the report and should not be taken as findings of fact. The issues raised, however, underscore wider concerns about governance, transparency, and quality assurance in legal education, areas which stakeholders across Fiji have long viewed as essential to preserving confidence in the profession and the institutions that train its future members.
Right of Reply Note:
Attempts were made to obtain comment from the Ministry of Education, the Fiji National University, and Ms Ana Rokomokoti regarding the matters raised in the whistleblower report. As of publication time, no responses had been received.
Fijileaks will publish any reply or clarification in full if provided: [email protected]
From Fijileaks Archive, 26 January 2015 (Oh, lawyer Richard Naidu will argue, Major Ana Rokomokoti enforced decrees against lawyers in 2015)
From Fiji Law Society to Interim Regime's then Lickspittle and Chief Registrar of the Fiji High Court, Major Ana Rokomokoti, 2009, who had forcibly entered the Fiji Law Society Office and removed files and records as regime took over all lawyer regulatory functions.
“I have reason to believe that this convention will be contrary to the provisions of the Public Emergency Regulations 2009" - Police Commissioner IOANE NAIVALURUA to Fiji Law Society, 21 October 2011 |  Frankly frightful of Naivalurua's every step! |
