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." |
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.
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. |  |
*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.
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.
