 |  |
WHY THE CLOSURE OF THE 12 COI FILES DOES NOT TOUCH OUR CASE ON BIMAN PRASAD
Over the past 12 hours, following the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions’ public statement on the Commission of Inquiry files, I have received a steady stream of messages from readers asking a simple and legitimate question: does this mean the case against Biman Prasad is now over
The answer is NO. And it is important to explain why, clearly and calmly.
What the ODPP Decision Actually Does
The ODPP has confirmed that 12 investigation files referred by the Fiji Police, all originating from the Ashton-Lewis Commission of Inquiry, do not meet the criminal threshold required to sustain charges.
An independent legal opinion from Ian Lloyd, an Australian KC, was obtained and adopted. That opinion states that there is insufficient admissible evidence to prosecute those persons named in the COI.
This decision brings to an end criminal prosecutions flowing from the COI itself.
It does not go beyond that.
What Those 12 Files Were About
Those files shared a common feature:
The ODPP decision therefore means one thing only: the COI has failed as a vehicle for criminal prosecution.
Nothing more should be read into it.
Why Our Biman Prasad File Is Not Affected
Our file concerning BIMAN PRASAD does not arise from the Commission of Inquiry.
It is not based on opinions, witness impressions, or compelled testimony.
It is based on:
Legally, that distinction is decisive.
What the ODPP Decision Does Not Say
The ODPP decision does not state that:
Our file was not one of the 12 files. It was not assessed by the ODPP. It was not part of the KC’s opinion.
There is therefore no legal clearance, no immunity, and no closure in relation to that matter.
A Point Readers Should Keep in Mind
A Commission of Inquiry cannot erase that obligation, and a prosecutorial decision on unrelated files cannot pre-empt it
In closing, what has ended is the criminal life of the Commission of Inquiry.
What has not ended, and has not even been formally tested, is whether a sitting MP and former Deputy Prime Minister and former Finance Minister repeatedly breached statutory declaration laws over multiple years.
Our work on that question remains intact, unaffected, and unresolved.
And until it is answered in law, it remains a live issue - no matter how loudly some may wish to declare otherwise.
Over the past 12 hours, following the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions’ public statement on the Commission of Inquiry files, I have received a steady stream of messages from readers asking a simple and legitimate question: does this mean the case against Biman Prasad is now over
The answer is NO. And it is important to explain why, clearly and calmly.
What the ODPP Decision Actually Does
The ODPP has confirmed that 12 investigation files referred by the Fiji Police, all originating from the Ashton-Lewis Commission of Inquiry, do not meet the criminal threshold required to sustain charges.
An independent legal opinion from Ian Lloyd, an Australian KC, was obtained and adopted. That opinion states that there is insufficient admissible evidence to prosecute those persons named in the COI.
This decision brings to an end criminal prosecutions flowing from the COI itself.
It does not go beyond that.
What Those 12 Files Were About
Those files shared a common feature:
- they arose because of the Commission of Inquiry,
- relied on COI material, and
- concerned conduct examined within the COI process.
The ODPP decision therefore means one thing only: the COI has failed as a vehicle for criminal prosecution.
Nothing more should be read into it.
Why Our Biman Prasad File Is Not Affected
Our file concerning BIMAN PRASAD does not arise from the Commission of Inquiry.
It is not based on opinions, witness impressions, or compelled testimony.
It is based on:
- statutory declaration forms personally signed by him;
- omissions and false statements capable of objective proof;
- company, land, and transaction records; and
- repetition of the same omissions across multiple declaration years.
Legally, that distinction is decisive.
What the ODPP Decision Does Not Say
The ODPP decision does not state that:
- Biman Prasad complied with statutory declaration laws;
- his declarations were accurate or complete;
- declaration breaches were investigated and dismissed; or
- future complaints are barred.
Our file was not one of the 12 files. It was not assessed by the ODPP. It was not part of the KC’s opinion.
There is therefore no legal clearance, no immunity, and no closure in relation to that matter.
A Point Readers Should Keep in Mind
- Each statutory declaration is a personal legal act.
- Each year stands on its own.
- Each omission rises or falls on documentary proof.
A Commission of Inquiry cannot erase that obligation, and a prosecutorial decision on unrelated files cannot pre-empt it
In closing, what has ended is the criminal life of the Commission of Inquiry.
What has not ended, and has not even been formally tested, is whether a sitting MP and former Deputy Prime Minister and former Finance Minister repeatedly breached statutory declaration laws over multiple years.
Our work on that question remains intact, unaffected, and unresolved.
And until it is answered in law, it remains a live issue - no matter how loudly some may wish to declare otherwise.
 |  |
FROM COMMISSION TO COLLAPSE: THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ODPP - KC OPINION ON THE DAVID ASHTON-LEWIS COI
The ODPP Press Release: What Has Actually Occurred
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has now formally confirmed that all twelve investigation files referred by the Fiji Police Force, each arising from and populated by persons named in the Justice David Ashton-Lewis Commission of Inquiry, do not disclose sufficient evidence to sustain any criminal charge.
Crucially, this was not a unilateral prosecutorial assessment. The ODPP conducted its own internal review, and commissioned an independent external legal opinion from Ian Lloyd KC, a senior Australian King's Counsel.
The KC’s conclusion is unequivocal: there is insufficient evidence to sustain any criminal charges against those recommended in the Ashton-Lewis COI report.
This opinion was adopted by the ODPP. The legal consequence is plain: every person named in the COI for possible criminal liability has now been cleared at the prosecutorial threshold.
What This Means for the Ashton-Lewis Commission of Inquiry Itself?
The Ashton-Lewis COI recommended ten potential criminal charges, including against Barbara Malimali.
However, a Commission of Inquiry:
The KC's opinion, and its adoption by the ODPP, means that:
In effect, the COI’s criminal limb has collapsed.
The ODPP Press Release: What Has Actually Occurred
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has now formally confirmed that all twelve investigation files referred by the Fiji Police Force, each arising from and populated by persons named in the Justice David Ashton-Lewis Commission of Inquiry, do not disclose sufficient evidence to sustain any criminal charge.
Crucially, this was not a unilateral prosecutorial assessment. The ODPP conducted its own internal review, and commissioned an independent external legal opinion from Ian Lloyd KC, a senior Australian King's Counsel.
The KC’s conclusion is unequivocal: there is insufficient evidence to sustain any criminal charges against those recommended in the Ashton-Lewis COI report.
This opinion was adopted by the ODPP. The legal consequence is plain: every person named in the COI for possible criminal liability has now been cleared at the prosecutorial threshold.
What This Means for the Ashton-Lewis Commission of Inquiry Itself?
The Ashton-Lewis COI recommended ten potential criminal charges, including against Barbara Malimali.
However, a Commission of Inquiry:
- Is not a court;
- Does not apply criminal standards of proof; and
- Operates under statutory compulsion and immunity regimes that often render its evidence inadmissible in criminal proceedings.
The KC's opinion, and its adoption by the ODPP, means that:
- None of the COI’s criminal recommendations survive prosecutorial scrutiny;
- The COI findings now sit exclusively in the political and administrative domain;
- The COI has no operative criminal consequence.
In effect, the COI’s criminal limb has collapsed.
