    As Editor-in-Chief of FijiLeaks, I disclosed and published leaked FICAC investigation files between 2014 and 2015 relating to health-sector tender matters involving Voreqe Bainimarama, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and Dr Neil Sharma, which FijiLeaks reported in the public interest at the time. Separately, in April 2024, I lodged a complaint concerning an alleged failure by Biman Prasad to disclose a directorship in Platinum Hotels & Resorts Ltd dating back to 2015, in accordance with statutory disclosure requirements. I make this disclosure in the interests of transparency. |     |
Old Offences, Selective Outrage: Why Richard Naidu’s 2015 Argument Falters Against 2011 Charges 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.
COURT TO HEAR PRASAD AND KAMIKAMICA HEARINGS TOGETHER
The Suva High Court has ordered that the permanent stay applications filed by former Deputy Prime Ministers Professor Biman Prasad and Manoa Kamikamica be heard together, following submissions from counsel in court.
Justice Siainiu Fa’alogo Bull made the decision, noting that while the cases will be called jointly to save time, they are not formally consolidated.
Both former government MPs are seeking permanent stays of proceedings in their separate legal matters. Counsel for each party argued there are shared legal issues, particularly regarding the appointment of the Acting Commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) Lavi Rokoika, which justify synchronized hearings.
Prasad faces charges relating to alleged failures in statutory disclosure and providing false information in a statutory declaration, while Kamikamica’s case includes charges of perjury and providing false information.
The joint hearing has been scheduled for March 18, 2026.
The Suva High Court has ordered that the permanent stay applications filed by former Deputy Prime Ministers Professor Biman Prasad and Manoa Kamikamica be heard together, following submissions from counsel in court.
Justice Siainiu Fa’alogo Bull made the decision, noting that while the cases will be called jointly to save time, they are not formally consolidated.
Both former government MPs are seeking permanent stays of proceedings in their separate legal matters. Counsel for each party argued there are shared legal issues, particularly regarding the appointment of the Acting Commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) Lavi Rokoika, which justify synchronized hearings.
Prasad faces charges relating to alleged failures in statutory disclosure and providing false information in a statutory declaration, while Kamikamica’s case includes charges of perjury and providing false information.
The joint hearing has been scheduled for March 18, 2026.
Why the DPP Can, and Should, Step In And Take Over Prasad’s Case Just as It Has in the Health Tender Prosecutions
As the case against Biman Prasad grinds slowly through the courts on a single alleged disclosure offence dating back to 2015, a fundamental question has begun to overshadow the legal arguments being advanced: why has the prosecution not been taken over by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), especially when other, allegedly stronger FICAC files were set aside in April 2025 and remain untouched?
The answer lies in the structure of Fiji’s criminal justice system, and in a distinction that is too often misunderstood. The high-profile prosecution of Voreqe Bainimarama, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and Dr Neil Sharma arose from investigations conducted by FICAC, yet the case is now being prosecuted by the DPP. No one disputes the legality of that arrangement.
The DPP’s Powers Are Constitutional, and Overriding
The DPP’s authority does not come from statute or delegation. It comes directly from the Constitution of Fiji. That authority allows the DPP to institute criminal proceedings, take over and continue prosecutions begun by other bodies, discontinue proceedings where appropriate, and assess evidence independently of the investigating agency.
Critically, the DPP’s powers are not affected by disputes over appointments within FICAC. This matters because much of the argument in Prasad’s case has focused on the legality of Lavi Rokoika’s appointment as FICAC Commissioner. Even if such arguments are ventilated in court, they do not prevent the DPP from stepping in, assessing the evidence afresh, and prosecuting in the public interest.
Why a DPP Takeover Matters in the Prasad Case
A DPP-led prosecution would immediately address several concerns now troubling the public:
Delay
The case before the court relates to an alleged non-disclosure from 2015. A decade later, the matter is now crawling through interlocutory stages. Delay of this kind risks undermining confidence in the justice system, regardless of the outcome.
Selectivity
There is credible reporting that other FICAC files involving Prasad, supported by documentary evidence, were discontinued by former Commissioner Barbara Malimali in April 2025. Those matters remain dormant, while one charge proceeds at glacial pace.
Institutional Confidence
A DPP-led prosecution would insulate the case from internal FICAC controversies and ensure decisions are seen to rest with the country’s constitutionally independent prosecutor.
Public Interest
The DPP is mandated to consider not just evidence, but public interest, fairness, and proportionality. That includes whether it makes sense to litigate a single charge for years while other alleged offences remain untouched.
Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied for Everyone
The maxim applies both ways. For an accused person, prolonged uncertainty and litigation over a single charge is unfair. For the public, watching potentially serious matters languish without resolution is corrosive.
If there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, the prosecution should proceed decisively. If there is not, the matter should be resolved without endless procedural drift. What undermines justice is limbo.
Why the Law Anticipates DPP Intervention
The law anticipates exactly this scenario. If prosecutions could be derailed simply by disputes over appointments or internal leadership within investigative bodies, corruption cases would become unmanageable. That is why the Constitution places the final prosecutorial call in the hands of the DPP.
Evidence does not evaporate because a Commissioner’s appointment is questioned.
Files do not become unusable because leadership changes.
Justice does not pause because institutions argue among themselves.
The Question That Now Needs Answering
The real question is no longer whether the DPP can take over the Prasad prosecution. The law is clear: the DPP can. The question is whether continuing to allow the case to inch forward in its current form, while other matters remain shelved, serves the interests of justice at all.
For a system built to combat corruption, the danger is not scrutiny.The danger is selective inertia.
Fiji has already demonstrated, through the Health Tender prosecutions, that FICAC can investigate and the DPP can prosecute without controversy. That same constitutional pathway remains open in the Prasad case.
Until it is used, or convincingly explained why it is not, the perception will persist that justice is being delayed not by law, but by choice.
And justice delayed, in the end, is justice denied.
The answer lies in the structure of Fiji’s criminal justice system, and in a distinction that is too often misunderstood. The high-profile prosecution of Voreqe Bainimarama, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and Dr Neil Sharma arose from investigations conducted by FICAC, yet the case is now being prosecuted by the DPP. No one disputes the legality of that arrangement.
The DPP’s Powers Are Constitutional, and Overriding
The DPP’s authority does not come from statute or delegation. It comes directly from the Constitution of Fiji. That authority allows the DPP to institute criminal proceedings, take over and continue prosecutions begun by other bodies, discontinue proceedings where appropriate, and assess evidence independently of the investigating agency.
Critically, the DPP’s powers are not affected by disputes over appointments within FICAC. This matters because much of the argument in Prasad’s case has focused on the legality of Lavi Rokoika’s appointment as FICAC Commissioner. Even if such arguments are ventilated in court, they do not prevent the DPP from stepping in, assessing the evidence afresh, and prosecuting in the public interest.
Why a DPP Takeover Matters in the Prasad Case
A DPP-led prosecution would immediately address several concerns now troubling the public:
Delay
The case before the court relates to an alleged non-disclosure from 2015. A decade later, the matter is now crawling through interlocutory stages. Delay of this kind risks undermining confidence in the justice system, regardless of the outcome.
Selectivity
There is credible reporting that other FICAC files involving Prasad, supported by documentary evidence, were discontinued by former Commissioner Barbara Malimali in April 2025. Those matters remain dormant, while one charge proceeds at glacial pace.
Institutional Confidence
A DPP-led prosecution would insulate the case from internal FICAC controversies and ensure decisions are seen to rest with the country’s constitutionally independent prosecutor.
Public Interest
The DPP is mandated to consider not just evidence, but public interest, fairness, and proportionality. That includes whether it makes sense to litigate a single charge for years while other alleged offences remain untouched.
Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied for Everyone
The maxim applies both ways. For an accused person, prolonged uncertainty and litigation over a single charge is unfair. For the public, watching potentially serious matters languish without resolution is corrosive.
If there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, the prosecution should proceed decisively. If there is not, the matter should be resolved without endless procedural drift. What undermines justice is limbo.
Why the Law Anticipates DPP Intervention
The law anticipates exactly this scenario. If prosecutions could be derailed simply by disputes over appointments or internal leadership within investigative bodies, corruption cases would become unmanageable. That is why the Constitution places the final prosecutorial call in the hands of the DPP.
Evidence does not evaporate because a Commissioner’s appointment is questioned.
Files do not become unusable because leadership changes.
Justice does not pause because institutions argue among themselves.
The Question That Now Needs Answering
The real question is no longer whether the DPP can take over the Prasad prosecution. The law is clear: the DPP can. The question is whether continuing to allow the case to inch forward in its current form, while other matters remain shelved, serves the interests of justice at all.
For a system built to combat corruption, the danger is not scrutiny.The danger is selective inertia.
Fiji has already demonstrated, through the Health Tender prosecutions, that FICAC can investigate and the DPP can prosecute without controversy. That same constitutional pathway remains open in the Prasad case.
Until it is used, or convincingly explained why it is not, the perception will persist that justice is being delayed not by law, but by choice.
And justice delayed, in the end, is justice denied.
Richard Naidu to FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali
5 September 2024
Dear Barbara Malimali,
"Prof Prasad was interviewed at FICAC on 12 August 2024 and 22 August 2024 in connection with alleged offences under s24 of the Political Parties Act 2013.
On 24 August I sent a letter (copy enclosed) to Mr Kuliniasi Saumi in connection with the investigations....On Tuesday 3 September 2024 (Fijileaks: a day before Malimali was appointed FICAC Commissioner) FICAC executed a search warrant at NFP's head office in Tamavua, Suva, and took possession of a number of documents.
Yesterday (4 September), at 6.53pm, Mr Saumi called me on my mobile phone. Mr Saumi advised that FICAC wished for Prof Prasad to attend at FICAC this afternoon for completion of his (Prasad's) caution interview. He indicated that FICAC's intention was to CHARGE Prof Prasad.
I indicated to to Mr Saumi that Prof Prasad would not resist any reasonable process but it was NOT reasonable for him to re required to attend at FICAC on less that 24 hours notice given his responsibilities.
First, this is a Parliament sitting week. Second, Mr Ajay Banga is making an official visit to Fiji this week. This is the first ever visit to Fiji, the World Bank is one of Fiji's largest development partner, and self-evidently the official who is his key contact in Fiji is the Minister of Finance (Biman Prasad).
Whatever is FICAC's view of Prof Prasad's conduct, it is NOT in anyone's interest, least of all Fiji's, for the Minister of Finance to be CHARGED with an offence in the middle of the visit."
5 September 2024
Dear Barbara Malimali,
"Prof Prasad was interviewed at FICAC on 12 August 2024 and 22 August 2024 in connection with alleged offences under s24 of the Political Parties Act 2013.
On 24 August I sent a letter (copy enclosed) to Mr Kuliniasi Saumi in connection with the investigations....On Tuesday 3 September 2024 (Fijileaks: a day before Malimali was appointed FICAC Commissioner) FICAC executed a search warrant at NFP's head office in Tamavua, Suva, and took possession of a number of documents.
Yesterday (4 September), at 6.53pm, Mr Saumi called me on my mobile phone. Mr Saumi advised that FICAC wished for Prof Prasad to attend at FICAC this afternoon for completion of his (Prasad's) caution interview. He indicated that FICAC's intention was to CHARGE Prof Prasad.
I indicated to to Mr Saumi that Prof Prasad would not resist any reasonable process but it was NOT reasonable for him to re required to attend at FICAC on less that 24 hours notice given his responsibilities.
First, this is a Parliament sitting week. Second, Mr Ajay Banga is making an official visit to Fiji this week. This is the first ever visit to Fiji, the World Bank is one of Fiji's largest development partner, and self-evidently the official who is his key contact in Fiji is the Minister of Finance (Biman Prasad).
Whatever is FICAC's view of Prof Prasad's conduct, it is NOT in anyone's interest, least of all Fiji's, for the Minister of Finance to be CHARGED with an offence in the middle of the visit."
