Keep On RUNNING  | "The military’s constitutional role cannot be interpreted as passive neutrality. | Our Last Hope |
*BIMAN Prasad is expected to stand before Parliament and deliver the 2025–26 national budget — a fiscal blueprint that will determine how every Fijian tax dollar is spent. |  |
*Now, despite never having been cleared by a court, and with public confidence in the process badly shaken, Prasad is not only still in office — he is about to decide how much funding is allocated to the very institutions responsible for holding him accountable: the Fiji Police, the RFMF, and the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC).
*Why Prasad should not be delivering the national budget - the man who narrowly escaped prosecution for dishonesty in statutory declarations, starting in 2014. If he had been found out then, he would never have been in PARLIAMENT today but in PRISON.
Constitution, Corruption, and Command: Can the Military Stay Silent While Biman Delivers the Budget?
Fiji is now facing a serious constitutional contradiction: A Minister for Finance credibly implicated for lying in his statutory declarations in 2014 (and entering Parliament as NFP leader and an MP, and continued to lie for the next ten years) is preparing to deliver the national budget, while the institution constitutionally tasked with safeguarding national security and the well-being of the state — the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) — remains publicly silent.
This is not a call for intervention. It is a call for constitutional clarity and institutional accountability.
The issue at stake is not only whether Biman Prasad should step aside while unresolved criminal matters remain hanging over him. It is also about the institutional duty under Section 131 of the Constitution, and whether the military is legally and morally obliged to act when executive governance appears compromised by unprosecuted misconduct.
Section 131(2): The Military’s Constitutional Mandate
Section 131(2) of the 2013 Constitution provides that:
“It shall be the overall responsibility of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces to ensure at all times the security, defence and wellbeing of Fiji and all Fijians.”
This clause gives the RFMF a unique constitutional role unmatched in other Pacific democracies. While the military must not usurp civilian authority, it is not neutral when the state’s wellbeing is under threat from within — including through the breakdown of lawful governance or the erosion of democratic accountability.
The ‘wellbeing of Fiji’ includes the integrity of its institutions, the proper use of public funds, and protection from corruption at the highest levels.
The FICAC File: An Open-and-Shut Case That Was Improperly Shut by Malimali
A Fijileaks investigation (confirmed by FICAC) shows:
This is not judicial clearance. It is a prosecutorial deadlock caused by internal interference. It leaves the credibility of Fiji’s anti-corruption framework in doubt.
Why This Matters for the Budget — and National Stability
As Minister for Finance, Biman Prasad will present and oversee billions of dollars in expenditure. That includes:
In any rule-of-law society, a minister in such a position would be stood down or required to recuse himself pending resolution of serious legal issues.
His continued presence signals to the public:
This undermines both public trust and state stability — which falls squarely within the military’s constitutional concern under Section 131.
In Matalulu v. DPP [2003] 4 LRC 712, the Court of Appeal warned against political interference in prosecutorial discretion. But when interference does occur — as in this case — it becomes the duty of other arms of the state to step in and defend the constitutional order.
In R v. Horseferry Road Magistrates Court, ex parte Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42, Lord Griffiths held that a deliberate subversion of lawful prosecution can justify institutional correction.
In Fiji's context, the military’s constitutional role cannot be interpreted as passive neutrality. If the finance minister — the person controlling state expenditure — is able to evade lawful prosecution and remain in charge of the national budget, the constitutional balance is at risk.
What Should Happen Now?
This Is Not Just About One Man, Biman Prasad
The real issue is not just whether Biman Prasad should deliver the budget. It is whether Fiji’s constitutional safeguards still work when power protects itself. The military is not being asked to act outside the law — it is being asked to affirm the law by reminding the executive of its duty to govern within legal and ethical limits.
Fiji cannot afford a national budget drafted under a legal cloud. Nor can it afford constitutional silence in the face of unresolved corruption.
Let the prosecution proceed. Let the institutions stand. And let the law, not politics, guide who governs.
The Budget Cannot Be Delivered by a Man Who Should Be Answering to the Law
It tells the public that:
This undermines not only the rule of law — it erodes every citizen’s confidence in financial governance.
How can a Minister credibly deliver the budget while still facing unresolved and highly credible allegations of financial misconduct?
How can a Minister allocate funds to FICAC while FICAC’s own internal team recommended he be charged?
This is not just inappropriate — it is a textbook case of conflict of interest, and potentially, a violation of the public trust standard under Section 49 of the Constitution.
The Role of the Military Under Section 131 of the Constitution
This situation also raises hard questions for the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF), whose role is enshrined under Section 131(2) of the 2013 Constitution:
“It shall be the overall responsibility of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces to ensure at all times the security, defence and wellbeing of Fiji and all Fijians.”
The RFMF’s mandate includes not just military security but the defence of constitutional order and the wellbeing of public institutions. That duty is not triggered only by coups or foreign threats — it includes systemic breakdowns in the enforcement of law, including the suppression of anti-corruption processes at the highest levels.
If the Minister for Finance is able to suppress charges against himself — then allocate funding to the agencies meant to investigate him — the constitutional order is objectively under threat.
Let the budget be delivered. Let the law be upheld. But do not allow the accused Biman Prasad to control the levers of accountability.
Because when the accused holds the purse strings — the very idea of justice is bankrupt.
Fiji is now facing a serious constitutional contradiction: A Minister for Finance credibly implicated for lying in his statutory declarations in 2014 (and entering Parliament as NFP leader and an MP, and continued to lie for the next ten years) is preparing to deliver the national budget, while the institution constitutionally tasked with safeguarding national security and the well-being of the state — the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) — remains publicly silent.
This is not a call for intervention. It is a call for constitutional clarity and institutional accountability.
The issue at stake is not only whether Biman Prasad should step aside while unresolved criminal matters remain hanging over him. It is also about the institutional duty under Section 131 of the Constitution, and whether the military is legally and morally obliged to act when executive governance appears compromised by unprosecuted misconduct.
Section 131(2): The Military’s Constitutional Mandate
Section 131(2) of the 2013 Constitution provides that:
“It shall be the overall responsibility of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces to ensure at all times the security, defence and wellbeing of Fiji and all Fijians.”
This clause gives the RFMF a unique constitutional role unmatched in other Pacific democracies. While the military must not usurp civilian authority, it is not neutral when the state’s wellbeing is under threat from within — including through the breakdown of lawful governance or the erosion of democratic accountability.
The ‘wellbeing of Fiji’ includes the integrity of its institutions, the proper use of public funds, and protection from corruption at the highest levels.
The FICAC File: An Open-and-Shut Case That Was Improperly Shut by Malimali
A Fijileaks investigation (confirmed by FICAC) shows:
- In 2014, Biman Prasad failed to declare shareholding, directorship, and spouse’s co-owned property in his statutory declaration under the Political Parties Act;
- Subsequently, he also failed to disclose that his wife was a trustee of the Global Girmit Institute, an entity that received public funding;
- FICAC’s investigators and legal team recommended prosecution;
- His own lawyer, Richard Naidu, requested a deferral of the charging date — not a review;
- The file was closed not on legal grounds, but on flawed advice by Barbara Malimali, now discredited and removed.
This is not judicial clearance. It is a prosecutorial deadlock caused by internal interference. It leaves the credibility of Fiji’s anti-corruption framework in doubt.
Why This Matters for the Budget — and National Stability
As Minister for Finance, Biman Prasad will present and oversee billions of dollars in expenditure. That includes:
- Infrastructure funds,
- Health, education, and security allocations,
- And possibly disbursements to entities linked to his previous omissions.
In any rule-of-law society, a minister in such a position would be stood down or required to recuse himself pending resolution of serious legal issues.
His continued presence signals to the public:
- That corruption allegations do not matter, and
- That institutions are either powerless or unwilling to act against the powerful.
This undermines both public trust and state stability — which falls squarely within the military’s constitutional concern under Section 131.
In Matalulu v. DPP [2003] 4 LRC 712, the Court of Appeal warned against political interference in prosecutorial discretion. But when interference does occur — as in this case — it becomes the duty of other arms of the state to step in and defend the constitutional order.
In R v. Horseferry Road Magistrates Court, ex parte Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42, Lord Griffiths held that a deliberate subversion of lawful prosecution can justify institutional correction.
In Fiji's context, the military’s constitutional role cannot be interpreted as passive neutrality. If the finance minister — the person controlling state expenditure — is able to evade lawful prosecution and remain in charge of the national budget, the constitutional balance is at risk.
What Should Happen Now?
- The file against Biman Prasad must be re-opened and he must be charged without any further delay.
- An improper closure or withdrawal of a criminal file does not extinguish the underlying liability — it simply postpones justice.
- In R v. Sinha (2020 ONCJ 225) the Canadian court held that a prosecution improperly abandoned by a conflicted superior (similar to Barbara Malimali) could be reinstated when proper oversight was restored.
- He should be stood down or recused from delivering the budget until the matter is resolved.
- The RFMF should issue a constitutional reminder — not as a threat, but as a legal warning — that governance must be lawful, accountable, and free from impunity.
- Parliament must clarify whether any minister under investigation for financial misconduct can continue to exercise financial authority.
This Is Not Just About One Man, Biman Prasad
The real issue is not just whether Biman Prasad should deliver the budget. It is whether Fiji’s constitutional safeguards still work when power protects itself. The military is not being asked to act outside the law — it is being asked to affirm the law by reminding the executive of its duty to govern within legal and ethical limits.
Fiji cannot afford a national budget drafted under a legal cloud. Nor can it afford constitutional silence in the face of unresolved corruption.
Let the prosecution proceed. Let the institutions stand. And let the law, not politics, guide who governs.
The Budget Cannot Be Delivered by a Man Who Should Be Answering to the Law
It tells the public that:
- You can mislead authorities about your finances and still manage theirs.
- You can evade a criminal charge through internal influence and still be entrusted with tax policy.
- You can conceal your interests, and yet be the steward of public funds.
This undermines not only the rule of law — it erodes every citizen’s confidence in financial governance.
How can a Minister credibly deliver the budget while still facing unresolved and highly credible allegations of financial misconduct?
How can a Minister allocate funds to FICAC while FICAC’s own internal team recommended he be charged?
This is not just inappropriate — it is a textbook case of conflict of interest, and potentially, a violation of the public trust standard under Section 49 of the Constitution.
The Role of the Military Under Section 131 of the Constitution
This situation also raises hard questions for the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF), whose role is enshrined under Section 131(2) of the 2013 Constitution:
“It shall be the overall responsibility of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces to ensure at all times the security, defence and wellbeing of Fiji and all Fijians.”
The RFMF’s mandate includes not just military security but the defence of constitutional order and the wellbeing of public institutions. That duty is not triggered only by coups or foreign threats — it includes systemic breakdowns in the enforcement of law, including the suppression of anti-corruption processes at the highest levels.
If the Minister for Finance is able to suppress charges against himself — then allocate funding to the agencies meant to investigate him — the constitutional order is objectively under threat.
Let the budget be delivered. Let the law be upheld. But do not allow the accused Biman Prasad to control the levers of accountability.
Because when the accused holds the purse strings — the very idea of justice is bankrupt.
  |   |
From Fijileaks Archive, 4 June 2025
