  | *Just as Naidu repeatedly pointed out on his FB page the malfunctioning Government Buildings Clock in Suva that no one noticed for three months, equally, no one noticed Biman Prasad's false declarations until Fijileaks unearthed them in 2023, 2024 and 2025. Prasad lied in the 2014 declaration to get elected to Fiji's Parliament. |  |
| RICHARD Naidu, since you are a senior partner at Munro Leys and a long-standing corporate lawyer, let’s put your “ten-years-old offence”, charge theory, to a practical test. |  |
If one of your corporate clients deliberately hid crucial financial information from FRCS, not for ten years but even just ten days, would you stroll into court and argue:
“Your Honour, the offence is ten days old, and therefore it shouldn’t count”?
And more to the point. Would you ever advise a client:
“Keep hiding it. If you manage to bury it for ten years, I’ll argue it’s too old to prosecute”?
Because that is precisely the legal absurdity behind your claim that the concealment linked to Platinum Hotels & Resorts Ltd is “ten years old” and therefore somehow irrelevant.
You know, as every law graduate knows, that:
So here is the real question:
Would you ever let a corporate client adopt the “hide it for a decade, then call it old offence” defence or is this special treatment reserved only for former Finance Minister and DPM and the National Federation Party leader Professor Biman Prasad?
Just as you have repeatedly pointed out the malfunctioning Government Buildings Clock in Suva, no one noticed Biman Prasad's false declarations until Fijileaks unearthed them in 2023, 2024 and 2025. Biman Prasad lied in 2014 declaration to get elected to Fiji's Parliament. And he continued to file false declarations from 2015-2024.
“Your Honour, the offence is ten days old, and therefore it shouldn’t count”?
And more to the point. Would you ever advise a client:
“Keep hiding it. If you manage to bury it for ten years, I’ll argue it’s too old to prosecute”?
Because that is precisely the legal absurdity behind your claim that the concealment linked to Platinum Hotels & Resorts Ltd is “ten years old” and therefore somehow irrelevant.
You know, as every law graduate knows, that:
- The offence is the concealment.
- The offence repeats every year the concealment continues.
- The offence becomes actionable when the concealment is discovered. It is not when the hidden asset was first created.
So here is the real question:
Would you ever let a corporate client adopt the “hide it for a decade, then call it old offence” defence or is this special treatment reserved only for former Finance Minister and DPM and the National Federation Party leader Professor Biman Prasad?
Just as you have repeatedly pointed out the malfunctioning Government Buildings Clock in Suva, no one noticed Biman Prasad's false declarations until Fijileaks unearthed them in 2023, 2024 and 2025. Biman Prasad lied in 2014 declaration to get elected to Fiji's Parliament. And he continued to file false declarations from 2015-2024.
  |  |
 | JUDICIAL HOUSE IN QUESTION: Magistrate Yogesh Prasad Should Have Rescused Himself Over Past Property Purchase from BIMAN Prasad in 2010 |
Magistrate Yogesh Prasad should have recused himself from hearing the case involving Biman Prasad because he previously purchased property from Prasad in 2010.
Under established judicial-ethics principles, a magistrate has an independent duty to step aside whenever a reasonable observer could suspect bias, regardless of how old the transaction is and regardless of whether FICAC or defence counsel object.
FICAC’s silence does not cure the conflict; impartiality is not something the parties can waive. In a politically sensitive case involving a senior minister, the standard is even higher. By continuing to preside despite a past financial relationship, Magistrate Prasad created the appearance of partiality, undermining public confidence and reinforcing fears of a two-tier justice system.
Fiji deserves a judiciary that avoids not only actual bias but the appearance of bias, especially in cases involving the powerful.
Prior Financial Dealings Trigger Mandatory Recusal
A property purchase from Biman Prasad, regardless of how old the transaction is, constitutes a past financial relationship. In judicial ethics, that alone is enough to raise:
The 2010 transaction unquestionably meets the appearance threshold.
FICAC’s failure to object is irrelevant in law. Courts have consistently held that:
In other words, even if every lawyer in the room said “we are fine with it”, he still had to recuse himself.
This matter involves a former senior Cabinet Minister.
Public confidence in the criminal justice process is at stake.
In such cases, magistrates must err on the side of over-recusal, not under-recusal.
Magistrate Yogesh Prasad's continued involvement, despite a disclosed property transaction with a central political figure, is inconsistent with established principles of judicial neutrality.
Under established judicial-ethics principles, a magistrate has an independent duty to step aside whenever a reasonable observer could suspect bias, regardless of how old the transaction is and regardless of whether FICAC or defence counsel object.
FICAC’s silence does not cure the conflict; impartiality is not something the parties can waive. In a politically sensitive case involving a senior minister, the standard is even higher. By continuing to preside despite a past financial relationship, Magistrate Prasad created the appearance of partiality, undermining public confidence and reinforcing fears of a two-tier justice system.
Fiji deserves a judiciary that avoids not only actual bias but the appearance of bias, especially in cases involving the powerful.
Prior Financial Dealings Trigger Mandatory Recusal
A property purchase from Biman Prasad, regardless of how old the transaction is, constitutes a past financial relationship. In judicial ethics, that alone is enough to raise:
- reasonable apprehension of bias,
- the appearance of partiality, or
- compromised neutrality.
The 2010 transaction unquestionably meets the appearance threshold.
FICAC’s failure to object is irrelevant in law. Courts have consistently held that:
- impartiality is not a right the parties can waive,
- prosecutorial silence does not sanitise a conflict, and
- a magistrate must protect public confidence, not merely party consent.
In other words, even if every lawyer in the room said “we are fine with it”, he still had to recuse himself.
This matter involves a former senior Cabinet Minister.
Public confidence in the criminal justice process is at stake.
In such cases, magistrates must err on the side of over-recusal, not under-recusal.
Magistrate Yogesh Prasad's continued involvement, despite a disclosed property transaction with a central political figure, is inconsistent with established principles of judicial neutrality.
The House That Changed Owners, Except in Biman Prasad's Declaration
*We do not know whether the Tamavua house that Biman Prasad sold to Yogesh Prasad was jointly owned by Biman Prasad and his wife, Rajni Kaushal Chand, or owned solely by Biman Prasad.
*However, in his 2014 statutory declaration, he LIED by claiming that he was the sole proprietor of a house on Burerua St, Suva.
*This constitutes another criminal offence and should be investigated by FICAC.
*And, for God's Sake, Biman Prasad's lawyer and NFP donor Richard Naidu cannot come before court and claim that it is "TEN Years Old".
From Fijileaks Archives
  |  |
2014: Biman Prasad did not declare his DIRECTORSHIP in Lotus (Fiji) Ltd
In any case, the offence is a strict liability case with no statute of limitation. And even if there was one (which is not in this case) the words of the late Lord Denning is a stark warning to those who break the laws and then try and hide behind "passage of time", with Suva corporate lawyer Richard Naidu screaming, the offence is "ten years old".
Lord Denning The great British judge Lord Denning was also involved in abritrating the 1968 Fiji sugarcane contract dispute between the growers and the processor, which led to a new contract being established.
In 2008, I had cited Lord Denning's words in Victor Parsons & Co [1973] 1 WLR 29, 33-34, after revealing that Mahendra Chaudhry, the FLP leader and Frank Bainimarama's then interim Finance Minister was hiding $2million in his Sydney bank account.
Lord Denning: “The word 'fraud' here is not used in the common law sense. It is used in the equitable sense to denote conduct by the defendant or his agent such that it would be 'against conscience' for him to avail himself of the lapse of time.
The cases show that, if a man knowingly commits a wrong (such as digging underground another man's coal); or a breach of contract (such as putting in bad foundations to a house), in such circumstances that it is unlikely to be found out for many a long day, he cannot rely on the Statute of Limitations as a bar to the claim: see Bulli Coal Mining Co v Osborne [1899] AC 351 and Applegate v Moss [1971] 1 QB 406.
In order to show that he 'concealed' the right of action 'by fraud', it is not necessary to show that he took active steps to conceal his wrongdoing or breach of contract. It is sufficient that he knowingly committed it and did not tell the owner anything about it.
He did the wrong or committed the breach secretly. By saying nothing he keeps it secret. He conceals the right of action. He conceals it by 'fraud' as those words have been interpreted in the cases. To this word 'knowingly' there must be added recklessly': see Beaman v ARTS Ltd [1949] 1 KB 550, 565-566.
Like the man who turns a blind eye. He is aware that what he is doing may well be a wrong, or a breach of contract, but he takes the risk of it being so. He refrains from further inquiry least it should prove to be correct: and says nothing about it.
The court will not allow him to get away with conduct of that kind. It may be that he has no dishonest motive: but that does not matter. He has kept the plaintiff out of the knowledge of his right of action: and that is enough: see Kitchen v Royal Air Force Association [1958] 1 WLR 563.”
The limitation statute’s aim is to prevent citizens from being oppressed by stale claims, to protect settled interests from being disturbed, to bring certainty and finality to disputes and so on. These are, as legal commentators have pointed out, laudable aims but they can conflict with the need to do justice in individual cases where an otherwise unmeritorious defendant can play the limitation trump card and escape liability.
In Biman Prasad's case, he had a duty to disclose, and the cases from 2014 onwards are strict liability ones.
In 2008, I had cited Lord Denning's words in Victor Parsons & Co [1973] 1 WLR 29, 33-34, after revealing that Mahendra Chaudhry, the FLP leader and Frank Bainimarama's then interim Finance Minister was hiding $2million in his Sydney bank account.
Lord Denning: “The word 'fraud' here is not used in the common law sense. It is used in the equitable sense to denote conduct by the defendant or his agent such that it would be 'against conscience' for him to avail himself of the lapse of time.
The cases show that, if a man knowingly commits a wrong (such as digging underground another man's coal); or a breach of contract (such as putting in bad foundations to a house), in such circumstances that it is unlikely to be found out for many a long day, he cannot rely on the Statute of Limitations as a bar to the claim: see Bulli Coal Mining Co v Osborne [1899] AC 351 and Applegate v Moss [1971] 1 QB 406.
In order to show that he 'concealed' the right of action 'by fraud', it is not necessary to show that he took active steps to conceal his wrongdoing or breach of contract. It is sufficient that he knowingly committed it and did not tell the owner anything about it.
He did the wrong or committed the breach secretly. By saying nothing he keeps it secret. He conceals the right of action. He conceals it by 'fraud' as those words have been interpreted in the cases. To this word 'knowingly' there must be added recklessly': see Beaman v ARTS Ltd [1949] 1 KB 550, 565-566.
Like the man who turns a blind eye. He is aware that what he is doing may well be a wrong, or a breach of contract, but he takes the risk of it being so. He refrains from further inquiry least it should prove to be correct: and says nothing about it.
The court will not allow him to get away with conduct of that kind. It may be that he has no dishonest motive: but that does not matter. He has kept the plaintiff out of the knowledge of his right of action: and that is enough: see Kitchen v Royal Air Force Association [1958] 1 WLR 563.”
The limitation statute’s aim is to prevent citizens from being oppressed by stale claims, to protect settled interests from being disturbed, to bring certainty and finality to disputes and so on. These are, as legal commentators have pointed out, laudable aims but they can conflict with the need to do justice in individual cases where an otherwise unmeritorious defendant can play the limitation trump card and escape liability.
In Biman Prasad's case, he had a duty to disclose, and the cases from 2014 onwards are strict liability ones.
  |   |
COMPANY DIRECTOR: In 2016, Biman Prasad listed his occupation as COMPANY DIRECTOR (not a sitting NFP parliamentarian) and his wife Rajni Kaushal Chand as LECTURER (at USP). But in his 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 declarations, he FAILED to declare any of his directorships
