In August 2007, the late Fiji Sun publisher Russell Hunter sent all the tax documents relating to Mahendra Pal Chaudhry in our possession to George Langman, then deputy head of FICAC. Copies of the documents were also sent to Interim Prime Minister Commodore Frank Bainimarama. The documents were dispatched by registered post to FICAC headquarters in Suva. Langman responded in a manner that raised even more questions. He claimed that FICAC had not received the documents. Even more remarkably, he stated that the agency did not possess the expertise to investigate tax evasion allegations involving the minister and that the matter had been referred to the Fiji Islands Revenue and Customs Authority (FIRCA), whose ministerial line manager was Mahendra Chaudhry. |
George Langman fronting court in the trial of Dr Neil Sharma, Bainimarama and Aiyaz Khaiyum
|
In their bid to intimidate us, the then FIRCA Board, composed of Jitoko Tikolevu, Peceli Vocea, Arvind Datt and Pio Tikoduadua, rushed to court
|
In the Fiji Sun, Victor Lal, 15 August 2007
|
Russell Hunter to Victor Lal — 10 August 2007
“Here is what I think. We publish, pointing out that these files were received before the coup. We don't name the daaku – at least not yet. We hand over copies of the documents to FICAC – and say so – and also to the RBF intelligence unit but don't say so.
We challenge FICAC to launch an inquiry naming the person being investigated – as it has done in the past. It won't do it, of course. But we can keep on badgering them about it. When the boot boys come down here demanding all our information we can put our hands on our hearts and say FICAC already has it.
At least someone is acting in the public interest here.”
Victor Lal reply
“Ok. The end game is to name him and I am sure we will get there.”
2016, London. FINALLY, after three decades of co-operation, we met in person for the first time over beer and his favourite fish and chips
|
“We also have the recent case of an opinion columnist in the Fiji Sun masquerading as a regular correspondent...writing front page stories. So blatant has been the Fiji Sun’s disregard for ethics that these lead stories have explicit opinions contained within the article. These little tricks are getting out of hand and that is the reason why we have called everyone here to explain to you in detail once and for all the truth that continues to be misconstrued and disregarded by most sections of the media.” Bainimarama attacking Victor Lal at a hastily convened press conference while defending his then Finance Minister Chaudhry over the tax story, 24 February 2008 |
|
|
‘We Handed Him the Files’: How Langman Ignored the Chaudhry Tax Documents Sent to FICAC in 2007
Long before the recent courtroom revelations about stalled corruption investigations, the record shows that FICAC Deputy Commissioner Lt-Col George Langman had already been confronted with documentary evidence raising serious financial questions about the then interim Finance Minister Mahendra Pal Chaudhry.
That was in August 2007.
At the time, the late Russell Hunter and I were examining a set of tax records relating to Mahendra Chaudhry, then the Minister of Finance in Bainimarama’s interim government.
The documents, covering the period 1994–2004, appeared to reveal a troubling pattern: late payments, penalties, negotiated settlements with the tax authorities, and years in which tax returns had not been filed.
The material raised obvious questions about how a career politician had accumulated significant additional income and whether the records pointed to possible tax evasion.
But what followed was not an investigation.
Instead, the documents appear to have disappeared into the bureaucratic silence of Fiji’s anti-corruption system.
A Publication Strategy
Before the story was first published in The Fiji Sun on 15 August 2007, Hunter and I had already mapped out their strategy. An email sent by Hunter to me on 10 August 2007 laid out the approach. Hunter proposed that the documents should be published with a clear statement that they had been received before the coup. The individual concerned would not initially be named, but the authorities would be challenged to investigate.
Hunter suggested that copies of the documents should be sent to FICAC, while additional copies would quietly be provided to the Reserve Bank of Fiji’s intelligence unit.
“We challenge FICAC to launch an inquiry naming the person being investigated — as it has done in the past,” Hunter wrote. He predicted, however, that such an inquiry was unlikely. “It won't do it, of course. But we can keep on badgering them about it.” I agreed to the plan, responding succinctly: “Ok. The end game is to name him and I am sure we will get there.”
The Documents Sent to George Langman at FICAC
Three days later, on 13 August 2007, Lal acted on that strategy.
He sent all the tax documents in his possession to Lt-Col George Langman, then deputy head of FICAC.
Copies of the documents were also sent to Interim Prime Minister Commodore Frank Bainimarama.
The documents were dispatched by registered post to FICAC headquarters in Suva.
In other words, the anti-corruption body responsible for investigating financial wrongdoing had been formally placed in possession of material that raised questions about the financial affairs of a senior Cabinet minister.
Langman’s Response
The responses from the authorities could hardly have been more different. Bainimarama did not reply.
Langman, however, did respond in a manner that raised even more questions.
He claimed that FICAC had not received the documents.
Even more remarkably, he stated that the agency did not possess the expertise to investigate tax evasion allegations involving the minister and that the matter had been referred to the Fiji Islands Revenue and Customs Authority (FIRCA).
There was, however, one detail that stood out.
Despite claiming that FICAC had not received the documents, Langman never asked me to resend them.
Nor did he request further information or clarification about the allegations.
A Missed Opportunity
The episode represents one of the earliest documented instances in which allegations involving the financial affairs of a senior political figure were placed before Fiji’s anti-corruption authorities.
Years later, the Chaudhry tax controversy would re-emerge in a different context, eventually - seven years later - leading to FLP leader Chaudhry's conviction in 2014.
Langman’s Record Under Scrutiny
Today, Langman’s handling of the 2007 tax documents is being revisited in light of his recent testimony in the Health Tender trial.
In court, Langman acknowledged that he paused an investigation involving a government minister after being advised by then Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum to “hold off”.
The admission has raised serious questions about the independence of FICAC during that period.
But the events of August 2007 suggest that concerns about Langman’s approach to politically sensitive cases may stretch back much further.
The Unanswered Question
Nearly two decades later, the episode still raises a simple question.
If FICAC truly never received the documents sent by registered post in August 2007, why did Langman not ask for them to be sent again?
And if the documents were received, why did the anti-corruption agency responsible for investigating financial wrongdoing fail to pursue the matter further?
As new revelations emerge about stalled investigations and closed files, the story of the Chaudhry tax documents remains an early reminder of how corruption complaints can vanish, even when they are delivered directly to the doorstep of the institution meant to investigate them.
Long before the recent courtroom revelations about stalled corruption investigations, the record shows that FICAC Deputy Commissioner Lt-Col George Langman had already been confronted with documentary evidence raising serious financial questions about the then interim Finance Minister Mahendra Pal Chaudhry.
That was in August 2007.
At the time, the late Russell Hunter and I were examining a set of tax records relating to Mahendra Chaudhry, then the Minister of Finance in Bainimarama’s interim government.
The documents, covering the period 1994–2004, appeared to reveal a troubling pattern: late payments, penalties, negotiated settlements with the tax authorities, and years in which tax returns had not been filed.
The material raised obvious questions about how a career politician had accumulated significant additional income and whether the records pointed to possible tax evasion.
But what followed was not an investigation.
Instead, the documents appear to have disappeared into the bureaucratic silence of Fiji’s anti-corruption system.
A Publication Strategy
Before the story was first published in The Fiji Sun on 15 August 2007, Hunter and I had already mapped out their strategy. An email sent by Hunter to me on 10 August 2007 laid out the approach. Hunter proposed that the documents should be published with a clear statement that they had been received before the coup. The individual concerned would not initially be named, but the authorities would be challenged to investigate.
Hunter suggested that copies of the documents should be sent to FICAC, while additional copies would quietly be provided to the Reserve Bank of Fiji’s intelligence unit.
“We challenge FICAC to launch an inquiry naming the person being investigated — as it has done in the past,” Hunter wrote. He predicted, however, that such an inquiry was unlikely. “It won't do it, of course. But we can keep on badgering them about it.” I agreed to the plan, responding succinctly: “Ok. The end game is to name him and I am sure we will get there.”
The Documents Sent to George Langman at FICAC
Three days later, on 13 August 2007, Lal acted on that strategy.
He sent all the tax documents in his possession to Lt-Col George Langman, then deputy head of FICAC.
Copies of the documents were also sent to Interim Prime Minister Commodore Frank Bainimarama.
The documents were dispatched by registered post to FICAC headquarters in Suva.
In other words, the anti-corruption body responsible for investigating financial wrongdoing had been formally placed in possession of material that raised questions about the financial affairs of a senior Cabinet minister.
Langman’s Response
The responses from the authorities could hardly have been more different. Bainimarama did not reply.
Langman, however, did respond in a manner that raised even more questions.
He claimed that FICAC had not received the documents.
Even more remarkably, he stated that the agency did not possess the expertise to investigate tax evasion allegations involving the minister and that the matter had been referred to the Fiji Islands Revenue and Customs Authority (FIRCA).
There was, however, one detail that stood out.
Despite claiming that FICAC had not received the documents, Langman never asked me to resend them.
Nor did he request further information or clarification about the allegations.
A Missed Opportunity
The episode represents one of the earliest documented instances in which allegations involving the financial affairs of a senior political figure were placed before Fiji’s anti-corruption authorities.
Years later, the Chaudhry tax controversy would re-emerge in a different context, eventually - seven years later - leading to FLP leader Chaudhry's conviction in 2014.
Langman’s Record Under Scrutiny
Today, Langman’s handling of the 2007 tax documents is being revisited in light of his recent testimony in the Health Tender trial.
In court, Langman acknowledged that he paused an investigation involving a government minister after being advised by then Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum to “hold off”.
The admission has raised serious questions about the independence of FICAC during that period.
But the events of August 2007 suggest that concerns about Langman’s approach to politically sensitive cases may stretch back much further.
The Unanswered Question
Nearly two decades later, the episode still raises a simple question.
If FICAC truly never received the documents sent by registered post in August 2007, why did Langman not ask for them to be sent again?
And if the documents were received, why did the anti-corruption agency responsible for investigating financial wrongdoing fail to pursue the matter further?
As new revelations emerge about stalled investigations and closed files, the story of the Chaudhry tax documents remains an early reminder of how corruption complaints can vanish, even when they are delivered directly to the doorstep of the institution meant to investigate them.
