Home

STRUCK Off and FINED $500,000 Over $2.139 Million in Unreconciled Clients’ Trust Funds. Now Suresh Chandra Will Teach Law Clerks Legal Administration as Oceania Institute of Technology head of programmes

18/8/2026

.*Mr. Suresh Chandra from the inception of these proceedings did not directly accept his responsibility for the failure to maintain the Trust Account on the required minimum standard. Throughout the enquiry, he made all attempts to blame his employee Ms. Ashwini for the embezzlement of the Trust funds.
*Mr. Chandra in fact did not give evidence but remained silent. It is relevant to note that as opposed to an accused in a criminal matter, a practitioner in these disciplinary proceedings does not enjoy a right to remain silent.
*I find that the nature and gravity of the Respondent’s (Suresh Chandra's) misconduct viewed objectively calls for a severe sanction. As discussed earlier, the Respondent’s misconduct included the failure to properly supervise his staff and amongst other things, providing a large number of signed incomplete trust cheques to the employee.
*In many ways, it is this foundational and fundamental failure that led to the other matters described in the allegations. It is clear that a trust reconciliation, if properly and randomly was conducted within the two-year period would have alerted and revealed the fraudulent manipulation of the trust account balance.
*A timely discovery should have interrupted the scheme of the employee. Essentially, unsupervised staff and the failure to reconcile the trust account on a monthly basis for almost two-years provided the environment for the fraud. The Respondent is responsible through his own casual, careless and cavalier approach in managing the trust account, signing incomplete cheques and his failure to supervise..."
THE INDEPENDENT LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION
at SUVA. JUDGEMENT: 23 April 2023,
Justice Gihan Kulatunga, Commissioner
Conclusion

ONLY in Fiji, it seems, can a former lawyer be declared unfit to practise law, struck off the Roll of Legal Practitioners, fined $500,000 over serious trust-account failures, and then re-emerge as the man entrusted with educating the country’s law clerks about legal professionalism.

The Suresh Chandra presented by the Oceania Institute of Technology as its Head of Programmes is the same Suresh Chandra who formerly chaired the Fijian Electoral Commission and operated MC Lawyers.

There is no question of mistaken identity.

Chandra’s photograph, professional history and reported legal experience establish that OIT has appointed the struck-off former lawyer to teach its Diploma in Legal Office Administration.

The programme will be taught by Chandra, who was described simply as having “extensive legal experience” and as someone who began his career as a paralegal.

That description is accurate but spectacularly incomplete.

It omits the most consequential chapter of his legal career: the findings of professional misconduct, his removal from the Roll of Legal Practitioners and the $500,000 fine imposed upon him.

The disciplinary history omitted from OIT’s announcement. In March 2023, the Independent Legal Services Commission found Chandra liable on five of six professional-misconduct charges arising from the administration of the MC Lawyers trust account.

The proceedings concerned approximately $2.139 million in unreconciled trust-account funds.

The Commission found that Chandra had failed to supervise the account properly, failed to ensure that appropriate accounting records were maintained and signed incomplete cheques. These were failures involving the most basic responsibilities imposed upon a legal practitioner entrusted with clients’ money.

The Commission declared Chandra not a fit and proper person to engage in legal practice or operate a law firm.

He was struck off the Roll of Legal Practitioners, fined $500,000 and ordered to pay $2,000 costs.

His subsequent appeal was unsuccessful. These are formal findings contained in the public disciplinary record. They are not allegations by Fijileaks, political accusations or social-media gossip.

Yet when OIT promoted Chandra’s appointment, the public was told only that he possessed “extensive legal experience”.

Extensive, certainly. But not all of it deserving of a place on a graduation brochure. OIT must explain its decision. The issue is no longer Chandra’s identity. That is established. The questions now concern what OIT and the Fiji Law Clerks Association knew, what Chandra disclosed and why his disciplinary history was withheld from the public announcement.

Did Chandra disclose that he had been struck off?

Did he disclose the ILSC’s declaration that he was not a fit and proper person to practise law or operate a law firm?

Did OIT obtain and examine the disciplinary determination?

Did the Fiji Law Clerks Association know about the $500,000 fine?

Did the relevant accreditation authority approve the programme with full knowledge of Chandra’s status?

Was any formal suitability or risk assessment conducted before he was appointed to teach law clerks?

Will prospective students be informed before paying their fees?

OIT may contend that being struck off does not legally prevent Chandra from teaching. That may be so. A striking-off order ordinarily prevents a person from practising law; it does not necessarily prohibit every form of employment or academic instruction involving legal subjects.

But that does not answer the institutional and ethical questions. The programme is expressly being promoted as professional development for people employed inside lawyers’ offices. Its stated purpose is to give law clerks greater knowledge, capacity and recognition within Fiji’s legal sector.

Chandra’s disciplinary history is therefore directly relevant. It cannot reasonably be dismissed as an unrelated event from his private life.

The misconduct findings concerned supervision, legal-office administration, accounting records, incomplete cheques and the protection of clients’ trust money. In other words, they concerned precisely the standards of administration, responsibility and professional judgment that law clerks must be trained to understand.

The missing compulsory module. The announced programme will cover property law, company law, criminal law, family law, legal writing and elements of law for administration.

But OIT may wish to add several compulsory modules: How to Reconcile a Solicitor’s Trust Account. Why Lawyers Must Never Sign Incomplete Cheques. The Meaning of “Fit and Proper Person”. Protecting Clients’ Money from Unauthorised Withdrawals.

And finally: How to Disclose Material Facts When Advertising a Professional Course. That final module could be taught by someone other than the Head of Programmes.

A question of transparency, not eternal punishment.

Fijileaks is not arguing that a person struck off the legal roll must be permanently excluded from every occupation. People can rebuild their lives. They can seek rehabilitation, acknowledge their failures and contribute their knowledge in other fields.
But rehabilitation must be accompanied by transparency.

It cannot be accomplished by presenting the attractive portions of a professional biography while deleting the disciplinary conclusion. If OIT believes Chandra has been rehabilitated and is suitable to train law clerks, it should say so openly and explain the basis of that decision.

If Chandra remains struck off, and the public record indicates that he does, OIT should acknowledge that fact. If the institution believes his knowledge outweighs the gravity of the disciplinary findings, it should defend that judgment publicly.

Instead, Fiji was presented with a sanitised biography celebrating his “extensive legal experience” while omitting that the regulatory body charged with protecting the public had declared him professionally unfit and removed him from practice. That is not professional transparency.

It is professional history with the inconvenient pages torn out.

The law clerks deserve the complete truth

Fiji’s law clerks should not become collateral damage in this controversy. Many have worked for decades without a formal pathway to gain academic qualifications or professional recognition. They deserve proper instruction and a credible qualification. They also deserve to know who is teaching them.

They should not discover Chandra’s disciplinary history after enrolling. They should not be told that their lecturer merely has “extensive legal experience” when a central part of that experience culminated in one of Fiji’s most serious professional sanctions. And they should not be expected to learn about legal ethics and office administration from an institution unwilling to disclose material facts about its own Head of Programmes.

The controversy does not necessarily invalidate every element of the proposed diploma. But it demands immediate answers from OIT, the Fiji Law Clerks Association and any authority responsible for registering or accrediting the programme. There is indeed a big legal gap Chandra told the media: “There is a big legal gap.” On that point, he is entirely correct.

There is a gap between the biography presented by OIT and the disciplinary record. There is a gap between the professional standards demanded of law clerks and the transparency displayed by those organising their training. There is a gap between possessing legal knowledge and being considered fit to practise law.

And there is now a large credibility gap confronting the Oceania Institute of Technology.

The first lesson for every aspiring law clerk should be simple: Never conceal a material fact. OIT might begin by applying that lesson to itself. Fijileaks invites Suresh Chandra, OIT chief executive Dr Hasmukh Lal, OIT chairperson Dr Sereana Kubuabola, the Fiji Law Clerks Association and the relevant accreditation authorities to explain the appointment, the due diligence undertaken and whether students were told of Chandra’s disciplinary status.

Their responses will be published fully and fairly.

The Fiji Law Society has previously objected to legal appointments involving people found guilty of professional misconduct, including Alipate Qetaki and John Rabuku. Although teaching law clerks is different from holding judicial or prosecutorial office, the Society is statutorily concerned with protecting the public and maintaining professional standards.

What does Fiji Law Society president Wylie Clarke say?

The silence of the Fiji Law Society is becoming conspicuous.

Its president, Wylie Clarke, should state whether the Society was consulted about the appointment of Suresh Chandra to teach Fiji’s law clerks and whether it considers a struck-off former lawyer, whose breaches were described by the Court of Appeal as being at an “extremely serious level”, a suitable person to lead professional legal training.

The Society has previously spoken against appointments involving lawyers found guilty of professional misconduct. What principle applies here?

Chandra is not being appointed as a judge, prosecutor or practising lawyer. Nevertheless, he is reportedly being entrusted with teaching property law, company law and legal-office administration to people working inside Fiji’s law firms.

Does the Fiji Law Society support his appointment? Does it oppose it? Was it consulted? Or does it consider the matter outside its responsibility?

Fijileaks invites Wylie Clarke to state the Society’s position clearly.

From Fijileaks Archives

Villagate: Suresh Chandra and MC Lawyers acted for Biman Prasad in 2014 agreement to allegedly buy two off-plan villas from future Lotus co-director Sunil Chand

*The Sale of Agreement was between Sunil Chand (Vendor) and the Purchaser(s). The Lot was an area of 42 square meters of land and was to be delivered to the purchaser in the form of sub-lease of native land, being the subject, however, to such encumbrances, liens and interest implied in leases under the Property Law Act of Fiji.

Purchase price (exclusive of value tax) was $150,000.

*Deposit - 10% of purchase price - $15,000
*Balance of Purchase Price - 40% close up (slab, external walls and roofs).
*$60,000 and 50% on final completion (handover) - $75,000
Total: $150,000

*The contracts were signed between February-April 2014.

*Most were Indo-Fijians living in Australia, with three residing in Fiji, among them Biman Chand Prasad.

*Three days before Prasad and Chand registered Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd on 15 March 2014, Biman Prasad bought the two lots on 12 March.

*Whether he still owns the two lots only a thorough investigation by FICAC and the Supervisor of Elections will provide us the answer.

*What is clear is that we don't see him declaring the ownership of the two lots in his statutory declarations in 2014 (signed on 28 July 2014) nor in subsequent declarations including the 24 July 2024 declaration.

*On 12 March 2014 he buys two units from Sunil Chand's Off-Plan offer

*Three days later, on 15 March 2014, the two form Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd to build the Westville villas in Nadi.

*On 29 March 2014 BIMAN PRASAD is elected the leader of the National Federation Party, and leads the party into the 2014, 2018, and 2022 general elections (forms coalition with Sitiveni Rabuka's PAP to fight the 2022 election with the promise of Deputy PM).

*After the 2022 general election, he became Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance and line-manager of FRCA.

*Under the Political Parties Act 2014, Biman Prasad is required by law to truthfully and faithfully declare his assets, liabilities and income annually.

*We have called on FICAC to intervene, for his declarations from 2014-2014 are highly questionable and in breach of s24 of the Political Parties Act

THE DOCUMENT THAT CHANGES THE SCHOOL CAMPAIGN DEBATE: What Fiji Electoral Commission Actually Ruled in 2022 election on use of the school premises for political campaigns. Coalition on Coalition FEUD

16/8/2026

The General Secretary says the NFP will comply with the Electoral Act but they will not accept a Minister twisting section 113, frightening school communities, and using Ministry policy to claim authority over facilities that Government does not own.

He further says that school communities are not colonies of the Ministry of Education.

Iyer stressed that the Minister should read the law properly, respect school management committees, and withdraw his directive immediately.

The National Federation Party says the Minister for Education, Aseri Radrodro is misrepresenting section 113 of the Electoral Act by imposing restrictions on the use of school halls for political meetings.

NFP General Secretary, Kamal Iyer says section 113(4) prohibits campaign activity inside a public office, it does not say “all schools”.

He says it does not say “public infrastructure”. Source: Fijivillage News

The Minister for Education, Aseri Radrodro informs that the National Federation Party has misinterpretated his comments on the use of school premises for political campaigns.

Radrodro says he was approached by a newspaper journalist to respond to questions on the use of school premises for political rallies.

He says he had responded that there is a Ministry of Education policies that any use of school premises needs to be on the consent of the Permanent Secretary for Education.

He further clarifies that he had not made any reference to that provision of the Fiji Electoral Act 2014.

Radrodro says NFP General Secretary Kamal Iyer stated that his views are warped.

The Minister has urged Iyer to first determine the validity of statements attributed to him and then make comments.

Radrodro says Iyer should instead read section 150(c) of the Fiji Electoral Act 2014 which clearly outlines that any person who conduct’s any campaign in any educational institution commits an offense and liable upon conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years or both.

He reiterates that the Ministry will protect the integrity of their educational institutions and the wellbeing of the students and teachers by ensuring that school premises are not used for political campaigning by any party. Source: Fijivillage News

THE DOCUMENT THAT CHANGES THE SCHOOL CAMPAIGN DEBATE: WHAT THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION ACTUALLY RULED

The increasingly heated argument between Education Minister Aseri Radrodro and the National Federation Party over the use of school premises for political campaigning must now be examined against a document that ought to be central to the entire debate.

It is not an NFP interpretation of the Electoral Act. Nor is it an interpretation advanced by the Education Minister Aseri Radrodro.

It is Decision Number 29/22 of the Electoral Commission of Fiji, dated 15 November 2022.

And its title could hardly be clearer: “Guideline on the use of School Halls and Premises During Campaign Period.”

The one-page decision, issued under the name of then Electoral Commission chairperson Mukesh Nand, specifically established the rules governing political parties, candidates and their representatives when using school halls and premises during an election campaign.

The document is particularly important because it demonstrates that the electoral authorities themselves did not adopt a blanket proposition that every school in Fiji was automatically prohibited from being used for political campaigning.

Quite the opposite.

The Electoral Commission expressly created a framework under which certain schools could be used.

What Decision 29/22 actually says

The Electoral Commission laid down six conditions.

First, school premises could be used only after school hours, on weekends and on public holidays.

Second, all campaign posters and other campaign materials placed on the premises during their use had to be removed and the premises cleaned afterwards.

Third, and this is particularly important in the present controversy, arrangements for using the school premises had to be in writing and made with the owners or committee operating the school.

The Commission went further. It specifically stated that those arrangements were not to be made with teachers or executive heads of the school.

The political party, candidate or representative was also required to pay whatever fee was charged by the school owners or committee.

Fourth, the Commission stated: “School owners/committee will have the right to decide on allowing the use of the school premises or to refuse the same.”

Fifth came the crucial prohibition: “Government owned schools are not to be used for any campaign.”

Finally, the Commission defined “schools” for the purposes of the guideline as primary or secondary schools.

Those provisions need to be read carefully because they establish a distinction that risks becoming lost in the current political argument.

There are government-owned schools, which Decision 29/22 says cannot be used for campaigning.

And there are other primary and secondary schools whose owners or committees may decide whether to permit their premises to be used, subject to the conditions imposed by the Electoral Commission.

Section 113 does not simply say “no campaigning in schools”This is equally important.

Section 113 of the Electoral Act is headed “Prohibition on use of State resources to campaign.”

Its statutory focus is the misuse of State authority and State resources.

Among other things, it makes it unlawful for a public officer to conduct campaign activities; prohibits forcing or pressuring public officers to participate in campaigning; and makes it unlawful to conduct campaign activities or distribute campaign material inside a public office.

The 2021 amendment also expressly made it unlawful to use a Government vehicle for campaigning except for security purposes.

That distinction has practical consequences.

Section 113 has been enforced against campaigning inside unmistakably State facilities.

In December 2022, for example, FijiFirst candidate Alexander O'Connor was charged under section 113(4) of the Electoral Act over allegations that he campaigned and distributed campaign material inside two health centres and a nursing station.

Fiji Labour Party candidate Ajay Nand was similarly charged under section 113(4) after campaigning and distributing election material inside Korovou Police Station. Unlike O'Connor's case, Nand's prosecution proceeded to conviction. In July 2026, the Nausori Magistrates Court sentenced him to eight months' imprisonment, suspended for two years.

The Nand conviction therefore provides a concrete example of the conduct to which section 113(4) has been applied: the use of a State facility or public office for electoral campaigning.

But it does not necessarily answer the materially different question now at the centre of the NFP-Radrodro dispute: whether section 113 imposes an absolute prohibition on political meetings or campaigning at every primary and secondary school in Fiji, irrespective of whether the premises are State-owned or belong to a religious, community or private organisation.

That distinction becomes particularly important when Decision 29/22 is considered. If the Fijian Elections Office itself issued guidelines governing the circumstances in which school halls and premises could be used during the campaign period, it is difficult to reconcile that regulatory approach with an interpretation of section 113 that says Parliament had already imposed an absolute prohibition on political activity at every school.

The Nand case therefore demonstrates the reach of section 113(4) into unquestionably State-controlled premises; it should not, without further legal analysis, be treated as authority for the much broader proposition that every school hall in Fiji is automatically a prohibited campaign venue.

The problem with Radrodro's position

Education Minister Aseri Radrodro has said that there are Ministry of Education policies requiring any use of school premises to have the consent of the Permanent Secretary for Education.

That assertion raises a separate question.

There may indeed be Ministry policies regulating the use of schools. If such a policy exists and presently applies, it should be produced and its precise wording examined.

But it should not be presented as though it is what Electoral Commission Decision 29/22 says.

It isn't.

The Electoral Commission's guideline does not, on its face, say that political parties must obtain permission from the Permanent Secretary for Education before using every school premises.

Instead, it says that arrangements must be made in writing with the owners/committee operating the school.

And paragraph four goes even further by expressly giving the school owners/committee the right to decide whether to allow or refuse use of the premises.

That creates the question Radrodro now needs to answer.

What is the precise Ministry of Education policy upon which he relies, when was it made, under what statutory authority was it made, and how does it operate alongside Decision 29/22 of the Electoral Commission?

Producing that policy would go a long way towards resolving the argument.

But NFP should not overstate its case either. The existence of Decision 29/22 does not mean that political parties have an unrestricted entitlement to campaign at schools.

They plainly do not.

The guideline imposes conditions. Campaigning cannot take place during school hours. Written arrangements are required. The owners or committee can refuse permission. Campaign material must be removed afterwards.

And most importantly, government-owned schools cannot be used for campaigning at all.

The question therefore cannot properly be reduced to the proposition that “political parties may campaign in schools”.

The more accurate proposition is: The Electoral Commission's 2022 guideline permitted political campaign use of certain non-government school premises, subject to specified conditions, while expressly prohibiting campaigning at government-owned schools.

The Electoral Commission itself should clarify the position. There is another reason this matters now.

The 2026 campaign period has already begun, and the Electoral Commission has publicly reminded political parties that section 113 and the other campaign restrictions remain in force. Commission chairman Justice Usaia Ratuvili was reported in May as emphasising that Fiji's existing electoral law remains operative unless and until Parliament changes it.

That makes Decision 29/22 impossible simply to ignore.

If the Electoral Commission considers its November 2022 guideline to have expired with the 2022 General Election, been revoked, superseded or replaced, it should say so.

If Decision 29/22 continues to represent the Commission's interpretation of how school premises may be used during a campaign period, it should say that too.

Political parties, school management committees, religious organisations, teachers and voters should not have to determine the answer through competing political press statements.

The document speaks for itself. There is ultimately a straightforward way of cutting through much of the rhetoric. Read Decision 29/22. It does not say: “Political campaigning is prohibited at all schools.”

It says: “Government owned schools are not to be used for any campaign.”

And for the other schools falling within the guideline, it expressly provides that the school owners or committee have the right to decide whether to allow or refuse use of the premises.

That is a substantial distinction.

It also means that neither side should conflate three separate things: section 113 of the Electoral Act, Electoral Commission Decision 29/22, and whatever separate Ministry of Education policy Radrodro says requires approval from the Permanent Secretary.

They may interact, but they are not the same instrument.

Until the Ministry produces the policy upon which the Minister relies, and until the Electoral Commission clarifies the continuing status of Decision 29/22 for the 2026 campaign, categorical assertions from either political side should be treated cautiously.

For the moment, however, one documentary fact is beyond dispute: In November 2022, Fiji's Electoral Commission itself issued a formal guideline expressly providing for political parties and candidates to use certain school halls and premises for campaigning, subject to strict conditions, while drawing an explicit red line around government-owned schools.

That document must now be part of any serious discussion of the Radrodro-NFP controversy.

There is also a difficulty with Radrodro's reliance on section 150 of the Electoral Act. Section 150 is essentially the Act's regulation-making power: it empowers the Electoral Commission to make regulations necessary for carrying out the Act. It does not, by itself, establish a blanket prohibition against political meetings in all school premises.

Indeed, the more relevant evidence of how the Electoral Commission exercised its authority is its own Decision 29/22 of 15 November 2022, which expressly allowed certain non-government school premises to be used during the campaign period, subject to conditions, while specifically prohibiting the use of government-owned schools.

Therefore, citing section 150 (c) of the Fiji Electoral Act 2014 does not by itself answer the central question: where is the regulation, guideline or other legal instrument that overrides or supersedes Decision 29/22 and requires Permanent Secretary approval for the use of non-government-owned school premises?

The "Oxford St" Tent Columnist. Apology: From the comfort of my tent pitched on "Oxford St in London", or so National Federation Party leader Biman Chand Prasad insists is my permanent address.

COMING SOON, FULL ANALYSIS:
THE EMPEROR HAD NO CLOTHES: Justice Ashton-Lewis's COI Report Lost Its Lawful Authority after 31 January 2025. The Emperor Gold Mining ruling had laid down law; allotted time expiry required fresh Commission

The Constitution, the RFMF and s94(3): A Forgotten NZ Diplomat's Letter from Qarase Papers Returns to Constitutional Debate. s94(3) in the 1990 Constitution died with the 1997 Constitution, only to resurface in 2013

11/8/2026

As debate intensifies over the constitutional role of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF), I revisit a remarkable constitutional analysis prepared by the Legal Division of New Zealand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and transmitted to the Qarase Government by New Zealand's High Commissioner to Fiji, Michael Green.

It is one of hundreds of confidential Cabinet and RFMF papers, legal opinions, constitutional memoranda and diplomatic correspondence entrusted to me by the late Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase and members of his deposed SDL Government following the military coup of 5 December 2006. Despite our profound differences over many of his Government's policies, some of which I regarded as racially divisive and fundamentally inconsistent with my own vision of Fiji as an equal, multiracial democracy, Qarase nevertheless believed I would be the best person to preserve and chronicle these papers for posterity. The NZ government's legal department's analysis concluded that the sweeping constitutional responsibility conferred upon the RFMF by Section 94(3) of the 1990 Constitution did not survive the adoption of the 1997 Constitution, a constitutional settlement later reversed by Section 131(2) of the 2013 Constitution.

"History has an uncanny habit of returning to unfinished constitutional arguments."

VICTOR LAL

Laisenia Qarase

As Fiji once again debates the constitutional role of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) during the current review of the 2013 Constitution, I have returned to one of the most remarkable documents among the hundreds of confidential Cabinet and RFMF papers, legal opinions, constitutional memoranda and diplomatic correspondence entrusted to me by the late Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase and members of his deposed SDL Government following the military coup of 5 December 2006.

Those papers were never simply the records of a fallen government. They constitute a constitutional time capsule, preserving legal advice, diplomatic exchanges, Cabinet deliberations and military assessments from one of the defining moments in Fiji's modern political history.

Qarase and several of his ministers believed these documents should survive the coup and remain available for future generations seeking to understand how Fiji's constitutional order unravelled.

Despite our profound differences over many of his Government's policies, some of which I regarded as racially divisive and fundamentally inconsistent with my own vision of Fiji as an equal, multiracial democracy, Qarase nevertheless believed I would be the best person to preserve and chronicle these papers for posterity.

We had been close friends long before he entered politics. Our friendship survived the sometimes bitter political disagreements that later emerged, strengthened in no small measure by our mutual friend, the late Dr Mere Samisoni, one of Qarase's closest political colleagues.

Among the archive is a constitutional document whose significance has only increased with the passage of time.

It is a letter from Michael Green, then New Zealand's High Commissioner to Fiji, transmitting a constitutional analysis prepared by the Legal Division of New Zealand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Green served as New Zealand's High Commissioner to Fiji from late 2004 until his expulsion by the post-coup interim government in June 2007.

Nearly two decades later, the issues addressed in that legal opinion have returned to the forefront of Fiji's constitutional debate.

The question confronting New Zealand's legal advisers was deceptively simple: Did the Republic of Fiji Military Forces retain the sweeping constitutional responsibility contained in Section 94(3) of the 1990 Constitution after the adoption of the 1997 Constitution?

Green left no doubt that he was transmitting, not originating, the legal reasoning.

In his covering letter to the Vice-President (acting President) Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi, he wrote: "Our Ministry's Legal Division had commented on the proposition... that there may be a constitutional basis for the assertion by the RFMF Commander of broader powers than are normally considered proper in relations between the civil and military authorities. Their analysis concludes that this is not the case. I set out below for your consideration their line of argument."

Those words matter.

They establish that what follows was not simply the personal opinion of a foreign diplomat. It was the considered constitutional analysis of New Zealand's Legal Division, conveyed through the High Commissioner to Fiji's Vice-President during one of the most critical constitutional crises in the country's history.

Its conclusion was unequivocal.

Under the 1997 Constitution, the military no longer possessed the sweeping constitutional responsibility conferred by Section 94(3) of coupist Sitiveni Rabuka's 1990 Constitution.

History, however, would later take a dramatic constitutional turn.

The Controversial Legacy of Section 94(3)

Everything begins with one provision of the 1990 Constitution.

Section 94(3) declared: "It shall be the overall responsibility of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces to ensure at all times the security, defence and well-being of Fiji and its peoples."

Those words would become among the most controversial in Fiji's constitutional history.

Unlike the constitutions of most Westminster democracies, the provision appeared to assign the military an independent constitutional responsibility extending beyond defending the State against external threats.

Its language was remarkably broad. It did not merely refer to defence. It spoke of the nation's "security, defence and well-being." Over time, Section 94(3) came to be cited as constitutional justification for military intervention in Fiji's political affairs.

Whether Parliament originally intended such a consequence remains open to debate. Its constitutional significance, however, is beyond question.

The Reeves Commission Wanted It Removed

The Legal Division's analysis begins with the work of the Reeves Constitutional Review Commission, whose recommendations ultimately produced the 1997 Constitution.

The Commission noted that numerous submissions opposed Section 94(3), arguing that it assigned to the military responsibilities more properly exercised by elected civilian government.

The Reeves Commission agreed. It recommended that Section 94(3) be repealed. Its reasoning reflected orthodox Westminster constitutional principles.

The military exists to defend the State. It should remain subordinate to Parliament and the elected Government. Its functions should be defined by legislation enacted by Parliament, not by an entrenched constitutional provision capable of being interpreted as giving the armed forces an independent responsibility to determine the nation's "well-being."

The recommendation represented a deliberate constitutional choice.

Instead of recognising the military as an autonomous constitutional guardian, the Reeves Commission sought to reaffirm civilian supremacy.

What the 1997 Constitution Actually Did

The Legal Division then turned to the text of the 1997 Constitution itself. Section 112 continued the existence of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces. It dealt with the continued establishment of the RFMF; the appointment of the Commander; the Commander's authority over appointments, discipline and removals; and Parliament's power to legislate concerning the armed forces.

What it did not contain proved far more significant. The sweeping constitutional language of Section 94(3) had disappeared. There was no equivalent provision assigning the military responsibility for the "security, defence and well-being" of Fiji.

The Legal Division rejected any suggestion that Section 112 somehow carried Section 94(3) into the new constitutional order merely because it preserved the existence of the military. Its reasoning was straightforward. The continuation clause preserved the institution. It did not preserve every constitutional responsibility previously attached to that institution.

Indeed, the omission of Section 94(3) reflected Parliament's deliberate decision to create a different constitutional framework. The opinion's conclusion could hardly have been clearer. The 1997 Constitution did not carry forward Section 94(3).

As the Legal Division observed: "Section 94 is not one of them." In other words, the military's extraordinary constitutional mandate under the 1990 Constitution had ceased to exist.

Parliament Was Intended to Define the Military's Role

The Legal Division's analysis identified another constitutional feature that deserves renewed attention. Under the 1997 Constitution, Parliament, not the Constitution itself, was expected to define the functions of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces through legislation.

That distinction was fundamental. It reflected the orthodox Westminster constitutional principle that the armed forces remain subordinate to elected civilian authority. The military exists to defend the nation.

It does not independently determine the national interest, interpret constitutional crises or assume political responsibilities beyond those conferred by law. Those responsibilities belong to Parliament and the elected Government.

In the view of New Zealand's Legal Division, the framers of the 1997 Constitution had consciously abandoned the broader constitutional philosophy embodied in Section 94(3) of the 1990 Constitution.

The Republic of Fiji Military Forces Act

The Legal Division also examined the Republic of Fiji Military Forces Act. It noted that the legislation assigned the Forces responsibility for, "the defence of Fiji, with the maintenance of order and with such other duties as may from time to time be defined by the Minister."

That language is significant. It reflects the ordinary statutory responsibilities expected of professional armed forces operating under civilian control.

There was no statutory equivalent of the broad constitutional responsibility contained in Section 94(3).

Accordingly, the Legal Division concluded that while the RFMF undoubtedly continued to exist and retained important statutory functions, it possessed no independent constitutional mandate comparable to that conferred by the 1990 Constitution.

The distinction lay at the heart of the opinion. The military was a constitutionally recognised institution. It was not, under the 1997 Constitution, an autonomous constitutional guardian empowered to determine the nation's political or constitutional direction.

The Constitutional Philosophy of 1997

Read as a whole, the Legal Division's opinion was not simply an exercise in textual interpretation. It identified a deliberate constitutional philosophy underpinning the 1997 Constitution. That philosophy rested upon several principles.

First, Parliament, not the military, was constitutionally supreme. Secondly, the armed forces remained subordinate to elected civilian government. Thirdly, the military's powers were to be defined by legislation rather than by an expansive constitutional mandate.

Finally, constitutional disputes were to be resolved through democratic institutions and the courts, not by unilateral intervention by the armed forces.

Whether one agrees with every aspect of that interpretation is almost beside the point.
What matters is that, in early 2007, New Zealand's Legal Division considered this to be the proper constitutional reading of the 1997 Constitution.

Then Came the 2013 Constitution

History, however, took a dramatically different course.

Following the military coup of 5 December 2006, the abrogation of the 1997 Constitution and the promulgation of the 2013 Constitution, Fiji's constitutional architecture underwent a profound transformation.

Section 131(2) now provides: "It shall be the overall responsibility of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces to ensure at all times the security, defence and well-being of Fiji and all Fijians."

The similarity to Section 94(3) of the 1990 Constitution is unmistakable. The words "its peoples" became "all Fijians."

Otherwise, the constitutional principle was effectively restored.

The very responsibility which New Zealand's Legal Division had concluded disappeared with the adoption of the 1997 Constitution reappeared in the constitutional text.

In effect, the constitutional settlement reached after the Reeves Commission was reversed.

The RFMF once again acquired an express constitutional responsibility extending beyond the traditional functions of an armed force.

A Constitutional Circle Completed

There is an unmistakable historical irony.

The Reeves Commission recommended deleting Section 94(3) because many submissions argued that it conferred upon the military responsibilities inconsistent with parliamentary democracy.

The 1997 Constitution reflected that recommendation by omitting the provision.

The 2013 Constitution restored almost exactly the same constitutional language.

Whether that restoration strengthened Fiji's constitutional order or fundamentally altered the balance between civilian government and the military remains a matter of continuing debate.

But one fact cannot seriously be disputed. The constitutional philosophy of the 2013 Constitution differs fundamentally from that of the 1997 Constitution.

Why This Forgotten Legal Opinion Matters Today

Some readers may ask why a legal opinion prepared nearly twenty years ago deserves renewed attention.

The answer is simple. The opinion provides contemporary evidence that respected constitutional lawyers within New Zealand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs understood the 1997 Constitution as having deliberately removed the military's sweeping constitutional guardianship role.

That historical understanding has become highly relevant once again. Today's constitutional debate is no longer merely about the wording of Section 131(2).

It concerns two competing constitutional philosophies. One places the Republic of Fiji Military Forces within a constitutional framework in which Parliament defines its powers and civilian authority remains paramount.

The other expressly confers upon the military an overarching constitutional responsibility for the security, defence and well-being of the nation.

Those are fundamentally different constitutional models.

The current constitutional review therefore presents Fiji with an opportunity to decide which constitutional tradition it wishes to embrace.

A Forgotten Opinion Returns to the National Conversation

For almost two decades, this constitutional opinion remained among the hundreds of Cabinet papers, RFMF documents, legal opinions and diplomatic correspondence entrusted to me by the late Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase and members of his deposed SDL Government following the military coup of 5 December 2006.

I have preserved these papers not because I agreed with everything the Qarase Government stood for. I did not because history deserves to be preserved in all its complexity.

Many of Qarase's policies attracted my strongest criticism, and I regarded some of them as discriminatory and racially divisive. Yet our friendship, which long predated his entry into politics, endured despite those profound disagreements. He believed that I would preserve these documents faithfully, even where they challenged my own views.

This forgotten legal opinion is one such document.

It does not answer every constitutional question confronting Fiji today.

Nor should it be regarded as the final word.

What it does demonstrate is that, at one of the most turbulent moments in Fiji's constitutional history, New Zealand's own legal advisers concluded that the 1997 Constitution had deliberately removed the military's sweeping constitutional responsibility inherited from the 1990 Constitution.

The framers of the 2013 Constitution chose a different path by restoring, in substance, that very mandate through Section 131(2).

That is not merely an historical curiosity. It is one of the central constitutional questions now confronting the Constitution Review Commission and, ultimately, the people of Fiji.

Whatever conclusions the Commission eventually reaches, this forgotten legal opinion from the Qarase Papers deserves to form part of the national conversation.

For it reminds us that the constitutional role of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces has never been beyond debate.

It was debated before the 2006 coup.

It was debated in the aftermath of the coup.

And nearly two decades later, it remains one of the defining constitutional questions facing Fiji.

There is one final chapter to this story. During a meeting with the late Sir Paul Reeves in Oxford, he explained to me personally why the Reeves Commission insisted that Section 94(3) had to go. His reasoning sheds further light on today's constitutional debate. That remarkable conversation deserves a separate article, and I shall revisit it in another instalment.

The Qarase Papers : Document No. 1: New Zealand Legal Division Opinion on Section 94(3) of the 1997 Constitution

The "Oxford St" Tent Diaries: Watching Fiji Chase the Future by Arguing About the Past

From the comfort of my tent pitched on "Oxford St in London", or so National Federation Party leader Biman Chand Prasad insists is my permanent address, I have remained an amused spectator, quietly chuckling every time Fiji's political establishment descends into yet another existential struggle over the nation's future. Governments come and go, constitutions are written and rewritten, old slogans are discarded for new ones, and each generation confidently declares that it has finally found the formula to save Fiji. Yet, somehow, the same arguments, the same anxieties and the same contests for power keep returning, dressed in different constitutional clothing. Watching from my mythical tent on "Oxford St", I sometimes wonder whether Fiji's greatest constitutional constant is not change itself, but the country's extraordinary ability to keep relitigating the same political battles. I must retreat into my "TENT".

LotusGate II: Suspended Builder's Licence Adds Another Chapter to the Australian Story of Biman Prasad's Cousin, Lotus (Fiji) Ltd's Sunil Chand

10/8/2026

Court Watch: Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd co-director Sunil Chand sits with his cousin and business partner Biman Chand Prasad outside the Suva Magistrates' Court during Prasad's trial over allegations relating to Platinum Hotels & Resort Pte Ltd.

Following Fijileaks' revelations that Lotus Constructions Pty Ltd collapsed into liquidation after reportedly trading while insolvent, newly examined NSW Government records reveal that the company also accumulated an extensive compliance history, including builder's licence suspensions, disciplinary action, multiple fines and two NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal money orders.

Our earlier investigation, LotusGate: Sunil Chand, Co-Director with NFP Leader Biman Prasad in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, Faces Fresh Questions as His Australian Lotus Company Collapses into Liquidation, examined the company's financial collapse and the liquidator's preliminary findings.

Newly obtained records from the New South Wales Fair Trading public register now provide further insight into the company's regulatory history.

The register shows that Lotus Constructions Pty Ltd currently holds a suspended contractor's licence. The company, with Sunil Chand listed as its director, has held a contractor's licence since 13 February 2002.

However, the same public record reveals that the company's regulatory difficulties stretch back many years.

Among the matters recorded are disciplinary action in 2013, a suspension in 2014, further disciplinary penalties, penalty notices issued in later years, and subsequent orders of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT). The public register presently records the licence as suspended.

A Separate Story from the Liquidation

The regulatory history and the liquidation are legally distinct matters.

The licence record does not suggest that the suspension resulted from the liquidation. Indeed, the public register demonstrates that compliance issues had arisen years before the company ultimately entered liquidation.

Taken together, however, the two sets of publicly available documents provide a broader picture of the company's corporate history over an extended period.

A Familiar Name in Fiji

Sunil Chand is well known to readers of Fijileaks through our extensive investigations into Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, where company records show he served as co-director with National Federation Party leader Professor Biman Prasad.

Those investigations have examined the formation of the company, subsequent property transactions, corporate disclosures and related commercial dealings.

Public Record

The NSW Fair Trading register is a public regulatory record. It records administrative and disciplinary actions affecting the licence and should not be confused with findings of criminal liability.

Equally, the liquidation proceedings reported previously represent a separate legal process.

Nevertheless, both records concern the same Australian construction company operated by Sunil Chand and, viewed together, provide additional context to the corporate history of a businessman whose commercial activities have featured prominently in the LotusGate investigations.

20 Nov 2013: Disciplinary action. A$7,000 fine
6 Feb 2014: Licence suspended
9 Jul 2014: Disciplinary action. A$2,500 fine
5 Oct 2016:   Penalty notice. A$500 fine
1 May 2024:    Penalty notice. A$500 fine
20 Mar 2025   NCAT Money Order. A$49,720
2 May 2025:    Licence suspended (current suspension shown on register)
3 Feb 2026:   NCAT Money Order – A$365,740

https://www.fijileaks.com/home/lotusgate-sunil-chand-co-director-with-nfp-leader-biman-prasad-in-lotus-construction-fiji-ltd-faces-fresh-questions-as-his-australian-lotus-company-collapses-into-liquidation-with-bleak-financial-report

Visa Debate, 20 Years On: Standing Up to Australia...Again? Fiji Is Still Knocking at Canberra's Visa Door. Vuvale, But Still the Unequal Partner

9/8/2026

*Nearly two decades after Victor Lal challenged Australia's treatment of Fijians (2005), the debate has come full circle. Ratu Tevita Mara is once again asking Canberra for visa-free travel and equal treatment, raising an uncomfortable question: can there be a genuine "Vuvale" partnership when one side still has to knock on the other's door?

"Do you have a criminal record?"

That was the opening question that framed my Fiji Daily Post feature on 3 November 2005, Standing Up to Australia. Nearly twenty-one years ago, I wrote:

"Do you have a criminal record?" asks the application form to a Fiji Islander who wants to visit Australia.

"Definitely, yes!" writes the prospective visitor. "What is the purpose of visit?"

"To visit family, a bit of sightseeing, and to witness first-hand the appalling condition of the aboriginal peoples of that country."

Application rejected.

It was satire. But it carried a serious point.

Back then I argued that Australia's immigration policy towards Pacific Islanders was riddled with contradictions. Canberra happily welcomed our labour, our nurses, our fruit pickers and our taxpayers' children who could afford international tuition fees but ordinary Fijians still had to endure the ritual humiliation of proving they were not intending to overstay, work illegally or disappear into suburban Sydney.

Nearly twenty-one years later, here we are.

Still debating visas. Still pleading for equality. Still talking about "Vuvale".

This week, Ratu Tevita Uluilakeba Mara called for visa-free travel for Fijians to Australia and questioned why Fijian students must wait until 2029 before qualifying for Australian domestic university fees under the expanded Vuvale arrangements.

He argued that if Fijians are good enough to work in Australian hospitals, farms and aged-care facilities, then they are good enough to enter Australia without jumping through bureaucratic hoops and for their children to receive fairer access to higher education.

It is a perfectly reasonable argument. The irony is that it is also a remarkably familiar one.

The "Vuvale" Family With Conditions

Australians can arrive in Fiji without first applying for a visa. Fijians cannot do the same. Apparently, in the Vuvale family, one sibling is trusted with the house keys while the other is asked to wait outside until Immigration finishes checking their references. Family, it seems, comes with paperwork.

The Labour We Want, The Traveller We Don't

Australia has become increasingly dependent on Pacific workers. Thousands of Fijians now work under the PALM scheme in agriculture, meat processing, aged care and other sectors, contributing significantly both to Australia's economy and to remittances sent home.

When Australian orchards need fruit picked...Welcome, Fiji. When hospitals need nurses...Welcome, Fiji. When aged-care homes need staff...Welcome, Fiji. When the same worker wants to visit relatives for a holiday without filling in pages of immigration forms...Not so fast.

The contradiction has survived changes of governments in both Canberra and Suva.

Haven't We Heard This Before?

Reading today's speeches feels oddly like rereading old newspaper cuttings. In 2005 I wrote that Australia appeared willing to "listen to the small Pacific Island voices" while continuing to maintain immigration barriers that treated Pacific Islanders differently from Europeans who enjoyed easier access.

I criticised what I regarded as Australia's selective embrace of multiculturalism, welcoming Pacific labour when economically convenient while maintaining restrictive immigration practices for ordinary visitors.

Twenty years later, only the vocabulary has changed. The debate has shifted from "seasonal workers" to "PALM". From "regional engagement" to "Vuvale". From "partnership" to "strategic alliance."

But the visa remains.

University Fees: Another Waiting Room

Ratu Tevita also questioned why Fijian students must wait until 2029 before accessing Australian domestic tuition rates.

Again, it is a fair question. Australia has spent years speaking about deeper Pacific integration. Education is perhaps the most enduring investment any nation can make in a regional partnership.

Every year a talented Fijian student delays university because international fees are beyond reach is another year of lost opportunity, not only for Fiji but arguably for Australia itself.

Twenty Years of Progress and Paperwork

To be fair, much has changed since 2005. Australia's engagement with the Pacific is substantially deeper. Labour mobility has expanded dramatically. Security cooperation is closer. Development assistance has increased. The Vuvale framework represents a significant political commitment.

These are genuine advances. But visas remain one of those awkward reminders that rhetoric and policy do not always travel at the same speed.

The Final Irony

Perhaps my 2005 imaginary visa application should now be updated.

Question: "Purpose of your visit?"

Answer: "To visit my Vuvale."

Question: "Do you have supporting documents?"

Answer: "Only twenty years' worth of speeches about Pacific partnership."

Result?
Application pending.

After almost twenty-one years, Fiji is still making the same argument.

Canberra is still giving broadly the same answer, only wrapped in warmer diplomatic language.

Some debates grow old.

This one appears to have qualified for permanent residency.

Peter Roberts:
Australian High Commissioner

The Office of the Gone Turaga Bale na Tui Nayau, Sau ni Vanua o Lau, Tui Lau, Ratu Tevita Lutunauga Kapaiwai Uluilakeba Mara is calling for visa-free travel to Australia and for Fijian students to access domestic university fees before 2029 as the two countries deepen their relationship under the expanded Vuvale Union.

While welcoming the expanded Vuvale Union announced in Suva in July, Ratu Tevita says one matter that remains unresolved is the requirement for Fijians to obtain a visa before travelling to Australia.

He says Australians can arrive in Fiji without having to apply for a visa, while Fijians must still apply before entering Australia.

The Tui Lau says Vuvale means family, and in our custom, family does not apply at the door.

He says allowing Fijians to travel to Australia in the same way Australians travel to Fiji would give greater meaning to the Vuvale relationship.

Ratu Tevita also welcomed the commitment allowing Fijian students to study at Australian universities under domestic fee arrangements from 2029, but questioned why Fijian families should have to wait another three years.

He says every year between now and then is another year of our families paying international fees they cannot afford.

The Tui Lau highlighted Fiji’s contribution to the Australian economy, saying Fijian workers are already supporting industries including horticulture, meat processing and aged care.

He says more than 5,000 Fijians were working in Australia under the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility or PALM scheme in late 2025, sending home an estimated FJ$145.5 million in the year to June 2025.

Ratu Tevita says Fiji also invests in training nurses, teachers and tradespeople who later take their skills to Australia.

He adds if our people are good enough to hold up Australian farms and Australian hospitals today, then our children are good enough to sit in Australian lecture theatres at an Australian’s fee today, not in three years’ time. Source: Fijivillage News

**147 Years of Knocking. Has the GCC Misplaced the Key to the Vuvale Door?**
For 147 years, Indo-Fijians have helped build Fiji's economy, institutions and democracy. Yet, many still feel they remain outside the symbolic Vuvale gate, waiting for an invitation that never quite arrives. While the language of unity is regularly invoked, critics argue that sections of the chiefly establishment and hardline iTaukei ethno-nationalists continue to reserve full acceptance for those they regard as indigenous first and citizens second. The knock on the Vuvale door continues but no one seems willing to answer.

Springboks Have Arrived But Are the Fijiana Still Playing Second to the Flying Fijians? What Would Mandela Make of This? Misogyny, Insurance Failings, And Alleged Two-Tier Treatment Overshadow Historic TESTS

6/8/2026

"This is the middle of the rugby calendar, and someone needs to answer for this decision."

Tabua

On Saturday, Fiji's national women's rugby team, the Fijiana, will accomplish something their better-resourced, better-paid and more heavily promoted male counterparts have never done before. They will play South Africa's Springboks on Fijian soil. It should be one of the defining moments in the history of Fijian rugby.

Instead, before a ball has even been kicked, the two-Test series has become the subject of criticism from former internationals and rugby supporters, who argue that the Fiji Rugby Union (FRU) has failed to give the occasion the prominence and respect it deserves.

The first-ever appearance in Fiji of the famous Springbok colours in a women's Test has been scheduled between Matches Three and Four of a full programme of five Deans Secondary Schools quarter-final matches at Suva's HFC Bank Stadium.

With rain forecast and three consecutive 80-minute schoolboy fixtures expected to take their toll on an already heavily criticised playing surface, critics fear the Fijiana could find themselves contesting one of the most significant matches in their history on a churned-up, muddy field.

Fuli

The second and final Test, on 15 August at Churchill Park, has again been scheduled as a curtain-raiser. This time before a provincial Skipper Cup match.

To many supporters, that raises an obvious question.

If a Test match represents the pinnacle of rugby achievement, why is Fiji's national women's team not being treated as the day's headline attraction?

Former Flying Fijian and Olympic bronze medal-winning coach Saiasi Fuli was among the first to publicly challenge the decision.

Writing on Facebook, Fuli argued that women's Test rugby deserved exactly the same status accorded to the Flying Fijians.

"The same TEST value that was given to the Flying Fijians must be given to the Fijiana XV — not a CURTAIN RAISER to schools rugby." He summed up his frustration with a blunt hashtag: #RugbyMockery

His criticism was echoed by former Flying Fijians coach Ilivasi Tabua, whose Fiji side famously came within touching distance of upsetting South Africa in the quarter-finals of the 2007 Rugby World Cup.

"Someone needs to be taken to task about this decision," Tabua wrote beneath Fuli's post.

When respected figures from different generations of Fiji rugby publicly question decisions made by Rugby House, those concerns inevitably attract attention.

A Pattern of Concern?

For many close observers of Fiji rugby, the current controversy is not viewed in isolation.

Critics point to an incident in December 2023 involving the Fiji women's sevens team. Travelling through Sydney en route to Dubai, the team reportedly discovered that no overnight accommodation had been arranged for their transit stop.

With Sydney Airport closing overnight, players and coaching staff reportedly faced the prospect of spending the night outside the terminal before re-entering the airport the following morning to continue their journey. FRU Board of Trustee chair Peter Mazey admitted that the Fiiji Airways Fijiana 7s team did sleep at the Sydney airport while on their way to the Dubai 7s in December 2023.

Supporters of the women's programme cite the episode as one example of what they see as a broader pattern of inadequate planning and lower priority being given to the women's game.

The Salanieta Kinita Case

Yet as the Fijiana prepare for the Springboks, many within Fiji rugby are reportedly focused on another issue entirely. The unresolved situation surrounding Fijiana and Fijian Drua flyhalf Salanieta Kinita.

In April, Fiji hosted Samoa and Tonga in a three-match women's series in Lautoka and Ba. The Fijiana comfortably won the tournament, culminating in an emphatic 60-7 victory over Manu Sina. Lost amid the scoring, however, was the sight of Kinita leaving the field in the 32nd minute.

Medical examinations subsequently confirmed that the Yasawa Island playmaker had suffered a complete rupture of her anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), one of rugby's most serious injuries.

According to accounts from within Fiji rugby, had Kinita suffered the injury while representing the Fijian Drua, the franchise's insurance arrangements would reportedly have covered both surgery and the lengthy rehabilitation period that normally follows ACL reconstruction.

Instead, the injury occurred while she was representing the Fijiana under the auspices of the Fiji Rugby Union.

According to those familiar with the matter, Kinita and her teammates naturally assumed that an injury sustained while representing Fiji would receive comparable medical support.

The question, they reportedly asked, was simple: "This is covered, right?"

More than three months after the injury, uncertainty reportedly remains. According to those familiar with the situation, Kinita and her former teammates have been advised that the FRU's insurance arrangements through Marsh do not cover overseas ACL reconstruction surgery or the associated treatment.

The FRU has not publicly responded to those reported claims.

The Cost of Waiting

For elite athletes, time is critical. An untreated ACL rupture is not simply painful. It can threaten an athlete's professional career.

The longer reconstruction surgery is delayed, the greater the risk of further damage to the knee.

Even after successful surgery, rehabilitation commonly takes between nine and twelve months before an athlete can safely return to elite competition.

Even if Kinita were to undergo surgery immediately, she would almost certainly miss next season's Super Rugby Women's campaign.

Every additional month of delay increases the possibility that an injury suffered while representing Fiji in April 2026 could ultimately cost one of the country's brightest players two full seasons of professional rugby.

A Significant Financial Burden

The financial implications are substantial. Publicly available information indicates that private ACL reconstruction surgery in the United Kingdom generally starts at around £7,000, approximately FJ$20,000, before specialist consultations, scans and rehabilitation costs are added.

Modern ACL reconstruction has become a well-established orthopaedic procedure.

The torn ligament is normally replaced using a tendon graft harvested from the patient's own hamstring or patella tendon before months of intensive rehabilitation begin.

In New Zealand, treatment for ACL and related sports injuries sustained by professional rugby players is generally funded through the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), ensuring that elite athletes are not personally burdened with the cost of surgery and rehabilitation.

If, as has been reported, the FRU's insurance arrangements do not provide equivalent cover for a Fijiana player injured while representing Fiji, the implications extend well beyond one individual case.

It understandably raises questions among players and supporters about whether women representing Fiji receive the same level of medical protection as other national representatives.

Those are questions only the FRU can fully answer by explaining the scope of its insurance arrangements for all of its national teams.

Another Injury Is the Last Thing the Fijiana Need

Those concerns inevitably cast a shadow over both Springbok Tests.

A serious injury this Saturday, or in the return Test at Churchill Park, would immediately focus attention on what support would be available to the injured player. Those anxieties are only heightened by concerns over the condition of the playing surface. If Saturday's Test becomes the fourth of six matches played on an already heavily used National Stadium pitch, particularly in wet conditions, critics argue that the risk of injury can only increase.

The Mandela Question

This should have been a celebration.

The first women's Springbok Test on Fijian soil should have been remembered simply as another milestone in the growth of women's rugby.

Instead, debate has centred on scheduling decisions, player welfare, insurance arrangements and whether Fiji's women internationals receive the same recognition afforded to the men's programme.

When Nelson Mandela embraced the Springboks after South Africa's 1995 Rugby World Cup triumph, he transformed rugby into a symbol of equality, reconciliation and national pride.

One cannot help but wonder what Mandela might have made of a historic Springbok tour overshadowed not by the rugby itself, but by questions over player welfare, insurance protection and the status accorded to the host nation's women internationals.

The FRU now has an opportunity to answer questions that many supporters are asking.

Why were two historic Test matches scheduled as curtain-raisers?

What medical insurance arrangements apply to players representing Fiji's women's national team?

Are those arrangements equivalent to those available to other national representative teams?

And finally, the question that continues to echo around Rugby House: If this is not a case of old-fashioned misogyny, or at least an institutional failure to accord women's rugby the same status as men's rugby, what exactly explains it?

The ball, as they say in rugby, is now firmly in the Fiji Rugby Union's hands.

Talk of Empowering Women Rings Hollow When Fiji's History-Making Fijiana Are Scheduled as an Afterthought

Minister for Women, Children and Social Protection, Sashi Kiran, says that in the last 60 years of Fiji's democracy, only 49 women have been elected to Parliament, while only 31 of them completed a full four-year term due to the various political upheavals the country has experienced.

Speaking during the Parliament Speaker's Debate 2026 at the Grand Pacific Hotel, Kiran questioned why, after 60 years of parliamentary democracy, the country is still discussing the need to increase women's representation in Parliament.

She says women currently hold just 9.1 percent of the seats in Parliament, with only five women among the 55 Members of Parliament.

Kiran says Fiji now ranks 165th out of 181 countries for women's representation in Parliament, below the global average of 27 percent and the Pacific average of 11.6 percent.

She adds that women held 16 percent of parliamentary seats in 2014, the figure rose to 19.6 percent in 2018, before falling to 10.9 percent and now standing at 9.1 percent.

MORTEIN POLITICS: Has ex - FFP Government Whip Ashneel Sudhakar Found a Fresh Can, Courtesy of INIA Seruiratu, leader of People FIRST. Sudhakar to Victor Lal: 'Pass the message to your fellow cockroaches...'

4/8/2026

From Fijileaks Archive, 2014

LOST IN TRANSLATION? THANK YOU, PROFESSOR BIMAN CHAND PRASAD!

A special vote of thanks to NFP leader Professor Biman Chand Prasad, who, back in September 2014, kindly translated then Government Whip Ashneel Sudhakar's colourful Hindi proverb for yours truly.

Without the Professor's Hindi linguistic assistance, Victor Lal might never have fully appreciated being compared to one of the "mad dogs" allegedly barking as the elephant passed through town.

As the old saying goes: "Jab haathi shahar se guzarta hai toh gali ke paagal kutte bhaoka hi karte hain." Translation (courtesy of Professor Biman Prasad, September 2014): "When the elephant is walking through the town, all the mad dogs in town will naturally bark."

Twelve years on, the proverb has aged rather differently than perhaps its author intended.

The elephant appears to have wandered off, the political circus has changed tents more than once, and the former Government Whip has now found himself welcomed into a new political stable by his former FFP ministerial colleague Inia Seruiratu.

One wonders whether the original proverb still applies, or whether, in the great migration of Fiji politics, the elephant has become a chameleon.

Either way, Fijileaks remains grateful to Professor Biman Chand Prasad for ensuring nothing was lost in translation. After all, accurate translations are important, especially when politicians are speaking in proverbs instead of plain English.

The NFP leader and newly elected MP rose to the occasion, again, in November 2015.

For years, Fijileaks had a running joke about former Government Whip Ashneel Sudhakar. Whenever another political controversy buzzed around him, we mischievously asked whether someone should send him another can of Mortein.

After all, every time the political mosquitoes started biting, Mr "800 Votes" somehow seemed to find another spray can to fumigate the headlines. The joke, of course, was never about insect spray. It was about political survival.

Then came 2020. Sudhakar's ministerial career imploded, he resigned from Parliament, and the once-powerful Government Whip disappeared from Fiji's political landscape faster than a cockroach when the kitchen light comes on.

For many, it looked as though the Mortein cupboard had finally run dry. How quickly politics proves us wrong.

A New Cupboard, A New Can

Politics, unlike Mortein, apparently never expires. Just when many thought Ashneel Sudhakar's political career had been consigned to history, Opposition Leader Inia Seruiratu opened the door of the People First Party and warmly welcomed him inside.

One cannot help wondering whether the welcome pack included a party constitution, a campaign T-shirt and, purely for nostalgic reasons, a jumbo-sized can of Mortein. The labels have changed. The party colours have changed. The slogans have changed. Apparently, political resurrection remains very much in fashion.

The Great Political Recycling Plant

Fiji politics has become wonderfully environmentally friendly. Nothing gets thrown away. Old politicians are recycled. Old alliances are recycled. Old speeches are recycled. Even old controversies are recycled, polished, repackaged and placed back on the political showroom floor with a shiny new price tag. One party's former headache somehow becomes another party's newest asset.

Forget Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. In Fiji politics, the slogan appears to be: Recruit. Rebrand. Relaunch. Repeat.

Fresh Politics or Fresh Packaging?

The People First Party promises a new beginning built on honesty, integrity and accountability. Every political party promises exactly that. The real test comes when the public looks beyond the mission statements and glossy photographs to examine the people being invited into the fold.

Voters are perfectly entitled to ask whether they are witnessing genuine political renewal or simply familiar faces appearing under a different banner. There is nothing unlawful about welcoming former politicians into a new party. Indeed, democracy depends on political participation. But democracy also depends on public scrutiny. Recruitment decisions speak just as loudly as policy speeches.

Questions for Mr Seruiratu

Inia Seruiratu is entirely entitled to recruit whomever he believes will strengthen his party. That is his democratic right. But by the same token, voters are entitled to ask whether those recruits reflect the standards the party says it wishes to uphold. If the People First Party is presenting itself as a clean break from the past, then the inevitable question becomes: A clean break from whose past? Fresh faces? Or simply familiar faces wearing freshly ironed shirts?

The Shelf Life of Political Memory

One of Fiji politics' most remarkable features is the astonishingly short shelf life of political memory. Yesterday's controversy becomes today's press conference. Yesterday's embarrassment becomes tomorrow's endorsement. Yesterday's political baggage is quietly relabelled as "valuable experience." Perhaps Fiji should stop talking about political parties and start talking about political laundries. Everything goes in heavily stained. Everything comes out looking remarkably fresh. At least until the next wash cycle.

The Last Spray

So perhaps the old Mortein joke still has life in it after all. The spray has not disappeared. It has merely changed cupboards. The can that once sat on the Government shelf now appears to have found a comfortable home elsewhere. Whether voters believe it is still effective, or whether it has long passed its expiry date, is a decision that ultimately belongs to them.

Until then, one mischievous question lingers in the political air: Has former Government Whip Ashneel Sudhakar found a fresh can of Mortein or has Inia Seruiratu simply handed him one?

Either way, Fiji politics continues to prove that while governments change, parties change and politicians change colours, one thing never seems to disappear completely: there is always another can of political Mortein hidden somewhere in the cupboard.

People First Party leader Inia Seruiratu has defended the party's decision to endorse former minister Ashneel Sudhakar, saying unproven allegations should not prevent him from contesting the 2026 General Election. Questions have been raised over Mr Sudhakar's selection after he was removed from Cabinet in 2020 following allegations of misconduct and sexual harassment. Mr Sudhakar, who was Minister for Lands at the time, resigned from the FijiFirst Party and was subsequently dismissed from his ministerial portfolio. Mr Seruiratu said the party was fully aware of the allegations but noted that Mr Sudhakar had never been charged or convicted.

"We are fully aware of that, but they were only allegations and it was a party process. He was never charged or convicted, so why should he be denied the opportunity to come back and contest the election?" he said.
Mr Seruiratu said it would be unfair to victimise Mr Sudhakar over the allegations.

"Everybody is innocent, so why should he be victimised because of those allegations? In all fairness, he is still innocent, which is why we considered him as a candidate."

The People First Party, launched last Saturday, remains open to accepting more candidates. The Fiji Sun.

From Fijileaks Archive, 6 October 2014

The KAMIKAMICA ACQUITTAL. Different Forums, Different Standards of Proof. Why MANOA Kamikamica's Acquittal Does NOT Automatically Discredit the COI. And What Now for Ravu, the Witness Who Turned Coy?

3/8/2026

Rabuka

Kamikamica

Prasad

Vosarogo

From Fijileaks Archive, 22 July 2026

ACQUITTAL DOES NOT MEAN THE COI GOT IT WRONG: Why the Kamikamica Verdict Should Not Be Used to Rewrite the History of the Commission of Inquiry

The acquittal of former Deputy Prime Minister Manoa Kamikamica has triggered a predictable chorus from critics of the Commission of Inquiry into Barbara Malimali's appointment as FICAC Commissioner.

To them, the verdict is proof that the Commission was fundamentally flawed, that Commissioner David Ashton-Lewis and counsel Janet Mason were wrong to rely on Kalaveti Ravu's evidence, and that the entire inquiry has now been discredited.

That conclusion is legally unsustainable. It confuses the constitutional role of a Commission of Inquiry with that of a criminal court. The two are entirely different institutions performing entirely different functions.

The COI was never a criminal court. A Commission of Inquiry does not decide whether someone is guilty of a criminal offence. It does not apply the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Nor does it pronounce convictions or acquittals. Its task is investigative.

It gathers evidence, hears witnesses under oath, resolves factual disputes where necessary and decides whether there is sufficient material to recommend that appropriate authorities investigate possible criminal conduct. That is precisely what happened here.

Ravu's affidavit was not accepted blindly. Much has been made of Kalaveti Ravu's affidavit. Critics suggest the Commissioners simply accepted his allegations and built their conclusions around them. The public record demonstrates otherwise. Ravu did not merely lodge an affidavit. He appeared before the Commission. He adopted his affidavit under oath. He answered questions about its contents. He was examined on the conversations he alleged had taken place with Kamikamica concerning his pending FICAC prosecution and Barbara Malimali's anticipated appointment as Commissioner.

Equally important, Kamikamica also appeared before the Commission. He was confronted directly with Ravu's allegations. He denied the central claims or said that he could not recall the conversations described. The Commissioners therefore had before them two competing sworn versions of events.

Assessing competing evidence is exactly what commissions of inquiry are established to do. Janet Mason's evidence confirms the Commission's process. Far from undermining the Commission, Janet Mason's subsequent evidence in the Magistrates' Court reinforced the integrity of its procedures.

Mason explained that witnesses were not merely invited to file affidavits. They were questioned extensively. Where allegations had been made against another witness, those allegations were put directly to that witness for response.

According to Mason's testimony, Kamikamica acknowledged asking Ravu about his criminal case "out of sympathy" but denied ever discussing Barbara Malimali or knowing beforehand that she would become FICAC Commissioner.

That evidence demonstrates that the Commission did not proceed on one-sided or untested assertions. It heard both sides before making recommendations. An acquittal does not invalidate the investigation. This is the distinction the Commission's critics either overlook or deliberately ignore.

A criminal acquittal means the prosecution has failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It does not automatically establish that every prosecution witness was dishonest; every Commission finding was wrong; the investigation lacked foundation; or the referral for investigation should never have been made.

Many investigations result in no conviction. That does not mean the investigation itself was illegitimate. Nor does it follow that investigators acted improperly by referring the matter to prosecuting authorities. The criminal court applied a different test. The Magistrates' Court was not reviewing the Commission's work.

It was deciding whether the prosecution had proved criminal charges beyond reasonable doubt. Those are entirely different exercises. The magistrate was free to reach conclusions different from those reached by the COI.

Indeed, Fiji's legal system expects different tribunals applying different legal standards to reach different conclusions where appropriate. That is not a failure of justice. It is the justice system functioning as intended.

Ravu's courtroom evidence

Much attention has focused on reports that, during the criminal trial, Ravu became reluctant to elaborate on some matters and remarked that he had "said enough".

Whether that affected his credibility was a matter entirely for the trial court. If the magistrate considered that his evidence was insufficiently reliable to support a conviction, that was a conclusion reached within the criminal process applying the criminal standard of proof.

It does not retrospectively invalidate the evidence Ravu gave before the Commission or establish that the COI acted irrationally in considering it worthy of further investigation. The COI could only assess the evidence before them at the time.

They heard Ravu. They heard Kamikamica. They considered the documentary evidence. They assessed credibility. They reached recommendations, not criminal verdicts.

Critics are rewriting history

Some of the Commission's most vocal critics now argue that the acquittal proves the inquiry was a waste of time. That argument misunderstands both the law and the purpose of commissions of inquiry.

If every Commission recommendation had to guarantee a conviction, commissions would become little more than shadow criminal courts. That has never been their constitutional role.

Their role is to expose facts, identify possible wrongdoing and recommend whether independent investigative or prosecutorial authorities should consider further action. Whether those authorities can ultimately prove criminal liability is another question altogether.

The real constitutional lesson

The Kamikamica acquittal should not become an excuse to diminish the work of the Commission of Inquiry. Reasonable people may disagree with the COI's assessment of particular witnesses. Reasonable people may also disagree with the magistrate's evaluation of the evidence.

That is the nature of independent decision-making. What cannot fairly be said is that the Commission acted improperly merely because the criminal prosecution ultimately failed.

An acquittal is not a judicial declaration that the Commission was wrong. It is simply a determination that the prosecution did not establish criminal guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Those are two entirely different propositions.

The Commission fulfilled its constitutional mandate by investigating, hearing sworn evidence from competing witnesses, testing that evidence, and recommending that potentially criminal conduct be examined by the proper authorities.

The Magistrates' Court fulfilled its constitutional mandate by independently deciding that the prosecution had not proved its case to the criminal standard.

The two outcomes are not inconsistent.

They reflect the different constitutional functions performed by a Commission of Inquiry and a criminal court.

That distinction is one the Commission's critics would do well to remember before proclaiming that an acquittal has somehow erased everything that the Commission heard, considered and ultimately recommended.

From Fijileaks Archive, 5 May 2026

Prasad: The Economics Professor With a Disclosure Problem

Professor Biman Chand Prasad walked into the Suva Magistrates Court to answer charges that have stalked him for years: false declarations and failure to disclose.

Let’s be clear. These are not trivial slips of memory. These are the very breaches that the Political Parties Act was designed to prevent.

Prasad stands accused of omitting his directorship and other relevant interests from his statutory declarations, documents that the law treats as sacrosanct because they protect the public from precisely the gamesmanship Fiji has seen from politicians for decades.

The allegation?

He filed declarations that were recklessly incomplete, to mislead the public and breach the transparency obligations he publicly champions.

These are regulatory offences. They turn on paperwork, timelines, and corporate records.

Dear Mr Iyer,

I am writing in relation to the National Federation Party's official statement of 25 June 2026, in which you referred to me as a "pervert."

I would be grateful if you could clarify the basis upon which you made this allegation.

Specifically, I ask:

What facts or evidence did you rely upon in describing me as a "pervert"?
Do you possess any documentary or other evidence to support that allegation?
If so, please provide copies of the material upon which you relied.

As this was an official statement issued on behalf of the National Federation Party and widely disseminated through the media and the Party's official platforms, I would appreciate your response at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely,
Victor Lal
Editor-in-Chief
Fijileaks

Coming soon: THE INVISIBLE DIRECTOR? How Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd's $4 Million Villa Project Was Publicly Unveiled While Co-Director and NFP leader Biman Prasad Stayed in the Shadows

LOTUSGATE: Sunil Chand, Co-Director with NFP Leader Biman Prasad in Lotus Construction (FIJI) Ltd, Faces Fresh Questions as His Australian Lotus Company Collapses into Liquidation, with bleak financial REPORT

2/8/2026

Sunil Chand at NFP conference in Labasa

The collapse of Lotus Constructions Pty Ltd in Australia has entered a significant new phase with the release of the liquidators' first statutory report to creditors. Although the report concerns the Australian company, it inevitably draws renewed attention to its director, Sunil Chand, who is also the long-time business associate and co-director of NFP leader Biman Chand Prasad in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd.

The report itself makes no allegations against his cousin Prasad and does not refer to Fiji. However, it places Sunil Chand's business affairs under renewed scrutiny at a time when his Fiji property dealings and Prasad's statutory declarations from 2014-2024 have already attracted considerable public and legal attention.

For Fijileaks readers, the significance of the report lies not in what it says about Fiji, because it says nothing, but in what it reveals about the collapse of another Lotus company under Sunil Chand's directorship and the serious issues now being examined by independent Australian liquidators.

A Company With Virtually No Assets

The liquidators' assessment is stark. After taking control of Lotus Constructions Pty Ltd, they found virtually nothing available for creditors.

According to the report, the company has no realisable cash; no commercially valuable motor vehicles; no other identifiable assets capable of producing returns for creditors.

The liquidators estimate the company's realisable assets at nil.

Against this stands estimated liabilities of approximately A$1.24 million, comprising A$752,508 in unpaid employee superannuation obligations; and A$487,831 in unsecured statutory debts.

On the information presently available, the liquidators conclude there is no realistic prospect of any dividend being paid to creditors, unless future recovery actions prove successful.

Employees and Government Agencies Among Major Creditors

One of the most striking aspects of the report is the scale of unpaid statutory obligations.

The largest claim relates to unpaid compulsory superannuation contributions owed to former employees, amounting to more than A$752,000.

In addition, unsecured statutory creditors include the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), which has lodged claims exceeding A$470,000; and iCare, the New South Wales workers' compensation authority, which is owed more than A$17,000.

These figures demonstrate that much of the company's outstanding debt is owed to employees and government agencies rather than commercial suppliers.

No Money for Creditors

The report makes it clear that creditors should prepare for the likelihood that they will receive nothing. Any future return depends entirely upon successful legal recovery actions; possible claims against the director; recovery of previously unidentified assets; or other successful litigation undertaken by the liquidators. Without those recoveries, creditors appear unlikely to receive any distribution.

Preliminary Finding That the Company Was Insolvent

One of the report's most important conclusions concerns insolvency. Following preliminary investigations, the liquidators believe Lotus Constructions Pty Ltd became insolvent sometime during the 2022 financial year, possibly earlier, and remained insolvent until the company entered liquidation.

They emphasise that investigations are continuing before a final insolvency date can be determined. The timing matters because Australian insolvency law allows liquidators to examine transactions entered into after a company became insolvent and, where appropriate, seek recovery for creditors.

Insolvent Trading Under Active Investigation

The liquidators confirm they are investigating whether the company traded while insolvent. Although no final determination has been made, they explain that further financial analysis is required; any legal claim must first establish the date of insolvency; the director may have legal defences available; and any proceedings would require detailed legal advice. Nevertheless, the issue remains under active investigation.

The report also expresses the preliminary view that the director may not be able to rely on Australia's Safe Harbour protections, although that question has not yet been finally determined.

Possible Breaches of the Corporations Act

Perhaps the most significant part of the report concerns the liquidators' assessment of possible breaches of Australian corporate law. Based on investigations conducted to date, the report states that the director may have breached Section 180 of the Corporations Act relating to directors' duties; and Section 588G relating to insolvent trading. Importantly, these are not findings of guilt.

Rather, they are preliminary opinions reached by the liquidators during the course of their statutory investigation.

The report also confirms that a formal report is being prepared for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) under Section 533 of the Corporations Act, dealing with potential offences identified during the liquidation.

Shareholder Loan Transactions Identified

ASIC's accompanying statutory Form 5601 identifies another issue requiring further examination. Among the possible recovery actions listed are "Shareholder loan transactions to the director." The form also confirms that possible recovery actions against directors or related parties remain under consideration. Again, these are matters requiring investigation rather than findings of wrongdoing.

Company Had Almost Nothing Left

The report paints a bleak financial picture.

The company's three Westpac bank accounts collectively held a net debit balance of just A$3.69.

The only remaining registered vehicle, a 1999 Mitsubishi Canter, was assessed as having no commercial value.

The liquidators also discovered that six additional vehicles formerly registered to the company had already been disposed of or deregistered before liquidation, and investigations into those assets remain ongoing.

Books and Records

The liquidators reviewed the company's accounting records and financial information. They conclude that financial records generally existed and appeared adequate to satisfy statutory record-keeping obligations.

However, they also note that management accounts were not maintained after trading ceased, meaning further investigation remains necessary before final conclusions can be reached.

Recovery Actions May Depend Upon Funding

Ironically, the report acknowledges that the liquidation currently lacks sufficient funds to pursue all potential legal claims. Creditors are therefore invited to contribute funding if they wish the liquidators to continue investigating possible recovery actions.

This highlights an unfortunate reality of many corporate collapses: serious legal issues may exist, but pursuing them often depends upon whether sufficient money is available to finance litigation.

Australian Investigation Continues

The liquidators outline several tasks still to be completed, including lodging their statutory report with ASIC; completing investigations into possible recovery claims; pursuing any identified claims if commercially viable; and finalising the liquidation within approximately six months, subject to recovery proceedings.

The report therefore represents the beginning, not the conclusion, of the investigation.

Why This Matters in Fiji

The liquidation report concerns an Australian company. It does not make allegations about Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, nor does it accuse Biman Chand Prasad of any wrongdoing.

Nevertheless, the report is undeniably relevant in Fiji because Sunil Chand remains widely known as the co-director and long-time business associate of NFP leader Biman Prasad in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd.

Corporate developments involving one of Chand's principal companies are therefore likely to attract close public interest, particularly given the wider public scrutiny already surrounding Lotus-related business ventures.

The Bigger Picture

Corporate liquidation reports are investigative documents prepared by independent insolvency practitioners acting under statutory duties.

They are not criminal judgments and should not be interpreted as findings of guilt. However, they do identify issues that independent liquidators consider sufficiently serious to warrant continued investigation and formal reporting to Australia's corporate regulator.

In this case, those issues include preliminary findings of insolvency; possible insolvent trading; possible breaches of directors' duties; shareholder loan transactions involving the director; potential recovery actions against the director or related parties; and liabilities exceeding A$1.24 million with virtually no recoverable assets. Whether those investigations ultimately result in legal proceedings remains to be seen.

What is already beyond dispute is that another company associated with Sunil Chand has collapsed into liquidation leaving substantial unpaid liabilities, no meaningful assets for creditors, and a series of unanswered questions now under formal investigation by independent Australian liquidators and, potentially, ASIC.

For Fijileaks readers, the report serves as another important chapter in the wider Lotus story. While it makes no findings regarding Fiji or Biman Prasad, it reinforces the public importance of closely scrutinising the corporate affairs of individuals who continue to occupy prominent positions in both business and public life.

NABAVATU TENDER UNDER THE MICROSCOPE: Did Sunil Chand Rely on the Reputation of an Australian Company That Liquidators Now Say Had Been Insolvent Since 2022?

When Lotus Projects Pte Ltd submitted its multimillion-dollar bid for Fiji's Nabavatu Village Relocation Project in July 2024, the proposal projected confidence, competence and financial strength. It portrayed director Sunil Chand as an accomplished builder whose decades of experience in Australia made him ideally placed to deliver one of the country's most significant rural housing projects.

Today, however, the tender deserves to be read in a very different light.

Since the bid was lodged, Lotus Constructions Pty Ltd, the Australian company whose experience featured prominently throughout the submission, has entered liquidation. More significantly, the liquidators have reached the preliminary conclusion that the company became insolvent sometime during the 2022 financial year, possibly earlier, and remained insolvent until it was ultimately wound up.

That chronology raises an important public interest question.

If the Australian company was already insolvent when the Nabavatu tender was submitted in July 2024, should that financial position have been disclosed to the Fiji Government?

A Tender Built on Australian Experience

The 68-page proposal was designed to persuade government evaluators that Lotus Projects possessed the technical expertise, management capability and commercial experience required to construct 37 two-bedroom homes for relocated Nabavatu villagers under an Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) contract valued at approximately FJ$5.29 million.

Throughout the submission, Chand's Australian construction history was presented as one of the company's greatest strengths.

The proposal stated that Lotus Projects had extensive experience delivering construction projects throughout Sydney and New South Wales, ranging from residential developments to commercial works. It claimed that the company's combined knowledge enabled it to assess project risks, deliver value and complete complex construction projects successfully.

The Australian business was not mentioned merely as background information.

It became one of the principal foundations upon which the bid rested.

Testimonials Reinforced That Reputation

Several supporting documents reinforced the image of a successful Australian construction company.

A consulting engineer stated that he had known Sunil Chand for approximately twenty years as a licensed builder in New South Wales and described Lotus Constructions as having successfully completed projects on time and within budget. He recommended Chand without hesitation.

Another testimonial described Lotus Construction Pty Ltd as a "highly successful venture" in Australia's building industry, praising Chand's entrepreneurial achievements before highlighting his investments back in Fiji.

The tender also included copies of Australian building licences, insurance commitments, architectural support letters, engineering endorsements and Fiji tax compliance certificates, all of which reinforced the impression that Lotus Projects was backed by a proven and financially credible construction enterprise.

The Liquidators' Findings Change the Context: None of the tender documents disclosed any financial difficulty involving the Australian company.

There was no indication of insolvency; no reference to financial distress; no mention of creditor problems; no suggestion that Lotus Constructions Pty Ltd was experiencing serious commercial difficulties.

Yet the subsequent liquidation has fundamentally altered the context in which the proposal is now viewed.

According to the liquidators' preliminary investigations, Lotus Constructions Pty Ltd had become insolvent during the 2022 financial year, possibly earlier, and remained insolvent until liquidation.

If that preliminary conclusion is ultimately confirmed, it means that when the Nabavatu proposal was submitted in July 2024, the Australian company whose reputation was repeatedly relied upon had potentially been insolvent for approximately two years.

Questions That Now Deserve Answers

That does not automatically establish that the Nabavatu tender contained false statements. Nor does it prove that Lotus Projects Pte Ltd in Fiji was itself insolvent. Those are separate issues requiring separate evidence. However, the liquidators' findings inevitably raise questions that deserve careful examination.

Among them are the following: Was the Fiji Government aware of the Australian company's financial position when assessing the tender? Should the financial condition of Lotus Constructions Pty Ltd have been disclosed if its experience and reputation were being relied upon to strengthen the bid? Would knowledge that the Australian company had allegedly been insolvent since 2022 have influenced the evaluation of the proposal? What due diligence, if any, was undertaken regarding the financial standing of the Australian business?

These are legitimate questions of procurement transparency rather than conclusions of wrongdoing.

Insolvency Does Not Automatically Prevent Tendering

It is equally important to distinguish insolvency from liquidation. Under Australian law, an insolvent company may continue operating for a period of time. It may complete projects, employ staff and continue trading, although directors may face legal consequences if insolvent trading provisions are breached.

Accordingly, the mere existence of insolvency does not automatically invalidate contracts or prevent a company or its directors from participating in commercial activities.

Nevertheless, where a tender relies heavily upon the reputation, experience and apparent commercial strength of a related company, the later discovery that liquidators believe that company had already been insolvent for years inevitably raises questions about what information was available, and what information should have been disclosed, at the time the bid was assessed.

A Different Perspective

When government evaluators read the Nabavatu proposal in 2024, they saw a polished submission presenting Lotus Projects as a contractor backed by decades of successful Australian construction experience.

Today, that same document reads differently.

The technical methodology, testimonials and endorsements remain exactly as they were.

What has changed is the context.

The liquidators' preliminary findings now cast a shadow over the Australian business whose reputation featured so prominently throughout the proposal. Whether that shadow should have affected the tender evaluation is ultimately a matter for those responsible for public procurement and, if necessary, further regulatory inquiry.

For the public, however, the chronology alone makes the Nabavatu tender worthy of renewed scrutiny. It presents a proposal submitted in 2024 that relied heavily on the standing of an Australian construction company which liquidators now believe had already been insolvent since at least 2022. That is a development that cannot simply be ignored.

SOURCES: It Is Understood This Brisbane Property Was Put Up for Sale to Recover the Shift Finance Australia Loan Advanced to Sunil Chand
Fijileaks has been informed by a source familiar with the matter that the Brisbane property was placed on the market in an effort to recover a loan advanced by Swift to Sunil Chand. Fijileaks has not independently verified this claim despite writing to the estate agent in Brisbane.

THE BROCHURE THAT RAISES QUESTIONS
Sunil Chand's Nabavatu Tender Featured Newspaper Reports Celebrating the 28 Lotus Construction (Fiji) Villas Opened by then FFP Minister Parveen Bala, Yet Biman Prasad Never Declared He Was Lotus (Fiji) Co-Director, That He Bought Two Off-Plan Villas, or That His Wife Rajni Kaushal Chand Allegedly Owns Two Villas in the Development

Click here for Lotus Construction ASIC Report

Warned in Private, Defended in Public: Why Did Sun Insurance Ignore the March 2025 Letter on Nouzab Fareed, now a convicted SEX OFFENDER. Reserve Bank of Fiji should set up Independent Tribunal into the matter

29/7/2026

Lolesh Sharma

Warned in Private, Defended in Public: Why Did Sun Insurance Ignore the March 2025 Letter from Lolesh Sharma on Mohammed Nouzab Fareed?

When the Board of Sun Insurance Company Ltd recently defended its decision to appoint Mohammed Nouzab Fareed as its Chief Transformation Consultant, it did so against a backdrop that the public knew little about.

More than a year earlier, on 31 March 2025, the company's largest shareholder had privately warned the Chairman and founding family directors that appointing Fareed posed a serious threat to Sun Insurance's governance, regulatory standing and corporate reputation.

That warning was not whispered in a corridor. It was set out in a detailed five-page confidential letter addressed to Chairman Padam Lala by Lolesh K. Sharma, a director and shareholder of Jancourt Holdings Company Ltd (JHCL), which he described as the single largest shareholder in Sun Insurance. Sharma also wrote as a former Chief Executive Officer of Sun Insurance who claimed intimate knowledge of the company's operations and governance.

Today, following Fareed's criminal conviction on two counts of indecent assault and Sun Insurance's public defence of his appointment, that confidential correspondence has become one of the most important corporate governance documents to emerge in recent years.

The issue is no longer simply Mohammed Nouzab Fareed. The issue is whether Sun Insurance's Board acted responsibly, diligently, and prudently after receiving one of the clearest governance warnings imaginable.

A Letter Marked "Private & Confidential"

The letter was headed "Serious Concerns of Bad Governance at Sun Insurance Company Ltd Board." It immediately made clear that Sharma had not written lightly. He told Chairman Padam Lala that he wished to resolve matters privately to avoid unnecessary public embarrassment for the founding families and to protect the reputation of Sun Insurance as a publicly listed company.

He reminded the Chairman that he had previously raised governance concerns in March 2023 but claimed no meaningful action had followed. According to Sharma, the problems had instead been allowed to "fester". This was not presented as a hostile shareholder attack. Rather, Sharma described himself as acting out of concern for the company, its shareholders and its policy holders. Ironically, the very publicity the letter sought to avoid has now arrived because subsequent events have dramatically altered the public interest.

The Fareed Warning

The most striking section concerned the appointment of Mohammed Nouzab Fareed. Sharma criticised what he described as the hiring of Fareed as Board Adviser, alleging that the appointment had occurred without the due process expected of a listed financial institution.

He argued that Fareed was already carrying what he called a "serious cloud" over his reputation because criminal proceedings were pending against him together with other allegations arising from his previous employment. The letter specifically referred to allegations involving inappropriate conduct towards a female employee and warned that Sun Insurance would inevitably face damaging headlines if the appointment became public. Sharma argued that the decision made a mockery of the "fit and proper" standards expected of financial institutions regulated by the Reserve Bank of Fiji.

At the time those comments were written, Fareed had not been convicted. The criminal proceedings were still before the courts. Like every accused person, he remained entitled to the presumption of innocence. That legal position is important and must be respected.

However, corporate boards are not required to ignore obvious reputational risks simply because criminal proceedings remain unresolved. It also applies to political parties and their leaders. They are expected to assess risk, exercise sound judgment and protect the institutions they govern. That is precisely what Sharma claimed had not happened.

The Court's Decision Changed Everything

The significance of the March 2025 letter changed fundamentally after the criminal proceedings concluded. In July 2026, Fareed was convicted by the Magistrates Court on two counts of indecent assault involving a female subordinate. The conviction does not prove every allegation contained in Sharma's confidential letter. Nor does it establish that the Sun Insurance Board knew Fareed would eventually be convicted.

But it does establish something equally important. The Board had received a formal written warning from its largest shareholder about the reputational consequences of appointing Fareed long before the court reached its decision.

That warning now deserves close scrutiny. Despite the conviction and growing public criticism, Sun Insurance has publicly defended its decision to appoint Fareed as Chief Transformation Consultant. That defence raises fresh questions.

If the Board still considers the appointment appropriate, what due diligence was undertaken before Fareed was engaged? Did the Board discuss Sharma's confidential letter? Was independent legal advice obtained? Did the Reserve Bank of Fiji receive notification of the concerns? Were shareholders informed?

These questions are no longer speculative.They arise directly from the chronology now in the public domain. The Board cannot say it was never warned. It was. In writing. Months before the controversy became public.

The Reserve Bank's Role

The Reserve Bank of Fiji occupies a unique position. Unlike ordinary commercial disputes, governance failures inside licensed financial institutions affect public confidence in the wider financial system. Policy holders entrust insurers with their savings and protection against future risks. Confidence in governance therefore matters enormously.

The public deserves to know: Did the Reserve Bank receive Sharma's letter? If not, should it have? If it did, what action followed? Was Fareed's appointment considered from a regulatory perspective? Were related-party transactions examined? Was any review conducted into governance arrangements? These questions are directed not at the merits of any individual allegation but at regulatory oversight itself.

SPX Also Has Questions to Answer

Sun Insurance is not merely a private family enterprise. It is listed on the South Pacific Stock Exchange. Listing brings additional obligations. Investors expect disclosure. Material governance disputes may affect shareholder confidence.

If the company's largest shareholder was alleging serious governance failures, did SPX receive notification? If not, why not? If yes, what action followed? These questions deserve clarification.

The Fareed Issue Has Become Symbolic

Ironically, Mohammed Nouzab Fareed may no longer be the central issue. His appointment has become symbolic of something larger. Corporate governance is tested not when everything proceeds smoothly. It is tested when difficult decisions arise.

How boards deal with risk says more about governance than annual reports or glossy corporate brochures ever can. The March 2025 letter challenged the Board to confront a potentially controversial appointment before events overtook it.

Instead, following Fareed's subsequent conviction, the company found itself publicly defending the decision. Whether that defence ultimately persuades shareholders remains to be seen.

Natural Justice Still Matters

It is equally important to emphasise what this article does not say. It does not conclude that every allegation in Sharma's letter is true. It does not accuse Padam Lala, Rajeshwar Lala or any director of wrongdoing. It does not state that Sun Insurance breached any law. Nor does it suggest that regulatory authorities failed in any statutory duty.

Those matters depend upon evidence. The purpose of responsible investigative journalism is not to pronounce guilt. It is to identify legitimate questions of public importance and encourage transparent answers. Natural justice requires every person criticised in Sharma's letter to have the opportunity to respond fully. Indeed, such responses may strengthen public confidence if they satisfactorily explain the Board's actions.

Questions Fijileaks Puts to Sun Insurance

Fijileaks now invites Sun Insurance to answer the following questions:

When was Mohammed Nouzab Fareed first engaged by Sun Insurance?
What due diligence was undertaken before his appointment?
Did the Board discuss the criminal proceedings then pending against him?
Did the Board receive Lolesh Sharma's letter dated 31 March 2025?
Was that letter tabled at a Board meeting?
What decisions were taken?
Was an independent investigation commissioned?
Was the Reserve Bank informed?
Was SPX informed?
Were shareholders advised of the dispute?
Did Fareed participate in Board discussions?
Did he have access to confidential Board papers?
Was he ever considered for appointment as Chief Executive Officer or Principal Officer?
Does the Board continue to stand by its decision following his conviction?

These questions deserve clear answers rather than carefully crafted public relations statements.

Padam Lala, Then and Now: From Military Procurement Questions to the Sun Insurance Governance Storm

Editor's Note: As Sun Insurance publicly defends its decision to appoint Mohammed Nouzab Fareed despite earlier governance warnings, Fijileaks is revisiting one of its own investigations involving the company's long-serving Chairman, Padam Lala. The article below was originally published during our investigation into alleged procurement irregularities within the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF). It is republished in the public interest because it forms part of the historical record surrounding an individual who has once again become the subject of public scrutiny over questions of corporate governance. Readers should note that the article reflects the evidence and issues available at the time of its original publication and should be read in that historical context.

PADAM LALA: From the Unpublished RFMF Budget Papers to the Sun Insurance Governance Controversy. **Why Fijileaks Is Revisiting an Investigation First Published After the 2006 Coup**

As questions mount over Sun Insurance's decision to appoint Mohammed Nouzab Fareed despite an earlier confidential warning from its largest shareholder, Fijileaks is revisiting an earlier investigation involving the company's long-serving Chairman, Padam Lala.

Nearly two decades before governance questions engulfed Sun Insurance, confidential Ministry of Home Affairs documents obtained by me raised concerns about procurement practices within the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) during the months preceding the 5 December 2006 coup.

Those unpublished RFMF Budget 2006 papers referred to purchases involving Lotus Garments, a company owned by Padam Lala, and recorded concerns already identified in the 2004 Auditor-General's Report regarding unauthorised procurement, falsified documentation and the need for police investigation.

The documents did not determine criminal liability against Padam Lala. Rather, they recorded the concerns of officials within the Ministry of Home Affairs and recommended further investigation, stronger procurement controls and the suspension of further dealings with Lotus Garments pending resolution of surcharge issues identified by the Auditor-General.

According to the confidential submission prepared for the then Minister for Home Affairs, officials warned that the RFMF was allegedly repeating procurement irregularities previously criticised by the Auditor-General, including unauthorised Local Purchase Orders (LPOs), manipulation of invoices, certification of goods allegedly not yet delivered, expenditure without Major Tender Board approval and purchases well beyond approved financial limits.

One passage specifically referred to the 2004 Auditor-General's recommendation that the Director of Military Resources be surcharged over unauthorised purchases from Lotus Garments, observing: "Given the above it is indeed unethical for RFMF to continue to do business with LOTUS Garments until the surcharge action is finalized."

The submission concluded by recommending a surprise special audit; investigation into payments supported by allegedly false Certified Receipt Vouchers (CRVs); disciplinary action against officers responsible for falsified procurement documents; strict compliance with Major Tender Board procedures; and that police be informed of the possibility of fraud.

Fijileaks originally published these documents because they formed part of the wider debate surrounding the RFMF's justification for overthrowing the democratically elected Qarase Government. Our reporting questioned whether allegations of corruption against civilian politicians could be reconciled with confidential government concerns about procurement practices within the military itself.

Today, the relevance of that historical investigation lies not in suggesting that the events are identical, but in explaining why the name Padam Lala has once again become central to a debate about governance.

The current controversy concerns the governance of Sun Insurance and the Board's decision-making process following warnings about Mohammed Nouzab Fareed's appointment.

The earlier controversy concerned procurement issues documented within confidential RFMF budget papers.

Separated by almost twenty years, both episodes nevertheless place Padam Lala at the centre of important public-interest questions about governance, accountability and institutional oversight.

As I have consistently argued since 2006, good governance is measured not by personalities but by transparency. When serious questions arise, whether involving military procurement or the boardroom of a publicly listed insurer, they should be answered through openness, documentary evidence and independent scrutiny, rather than silence.

Lotus, Padam Lala and the RFMF: How a Garment Company Became Central to Fiji's Multi-Million Dollar Military Procurement Controversy

An analysis of the unpublished 2006 RFMF Budget Irregularities Brief

In 2006, as Fiji edged ever closer to the military takeover that culminated in the December coup, an internal Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) brief raised a series of alarming questions about procurement, financial management and accountability. At the centre of the document stood one private company - Lotus Garments Ltd, owned by businessman Padam Lala.

Nearly two decades later, the document continues to raise uncomfortable questions. It does not accuse Padam Lala personally of criminal conduct. Rather, it identifies Lotus Garments as the principal supplier in a succession of military procurement transactions which the authors alleged were processed in breach of financial regulations and procurement procedures.

The Shadow of the 2004 Auditor-General's Report

The report begins by reminding readers that Lotus Garments had already featured prominently in the 2004 Auditor-General's Report.

According to the brief, the Auditor-General had recommended that the Director of Military Resources be surcharged over unauthorised purchases from Lotus Garments totalling $1,612,630 during 2003. Instead of correcting those deficiencies, the report argued that the RFMF was once again committing many of the same mistakes in 2006.

That historical reference remains important because it suggests that concerns surrounding Lotus Garments were not isolated incidents but formed part of a wider pattern that had already attracted official scrutiny.

Lotus Garments Became the Military's Principal Supplier

The report shows that Lotus Garments became involved in several major procurement exercises during the first months of 2006.

These included $1.9 million for winter clothing; $3.879 million for body armour, helmets, gas masks and protective equipment; $6.136 million in additional protective equipment that was still awaiting formal approval; $350,000 worth of badges, goggles, gloves and identification equipment; and an additional payment of $50,000 connected to the same procurement process. Collectively, the report estimated that procurement commitments reached almost $11.9 million within only four months. That figure continues to stand out because of both its scale and the speed with which the commitments were allegedly made.

The Report Focused on the Military Rather Than the Supplier

Contrary to what some might assume, the report was not principally an attack on Lotus Garments itself.

Its criticism was directed primarily at the conduct of RFMF officers responsible for authorising purchases, approving payments and processing procurement documentation.

The authors alleged that Local Purchase Orders (LPOs) had been issued without proper authority; Major Tender Board approval had allegedly been bypassed; purchase orders exceeded delegated financial authority; invoices were certified before complete delivery of goods; Certified Receipt Vouchers (CRVs) were issued to authorise payment even though some goods had allegedly not arrived; and cancelled tenders were used to justify purchases. Those allegations concern procurement governance rather than the quality of goods supplied by Lotus Garments.

Questions Over Extraordinary Quantities

One of the report's recurring themes was that the quantities purchased appeared far greater than operational requirements. Among the purchases questioned were more than 2,500 ballistic helmets; over 2,500 body armour vests; thousands of gas masks; thousands of hydration packs; and 10,000 winter jackets. The report noted that

Fiji's overseas deployments involved only several hundred personnel. It therefore questioned why such quantities had been ordered.

The author also recalled that Australian and United Nations forces were already supplying protective equipment for overseas peacekeeping missions, raising further questions about whether the additional purchases were necessary.

Alleged Manipulation of Financial Documentation

Perhaps the most serious aspect of the report concerns documentation. According to the brief, payment processes allegedly relied upon manipulated invoices; altered purchase orders; false certification that goods had been received; CRVs authorising payment before complete delivery.

The report concluded that there had been deliberate attempts to manipulate documentation to facilitate payment and described the circumstances as raising the "possibility of fraud."

These were allegations contained within the internal brief and should be understood in that context unless independently established through official investigation or court proceedings.

Why Was Lotus Still Receiving Contracts? One question continues to resonate.

If the Auditor-General had already criticised military procurement involving Lotus Garments in relation to 2003 purchases, why did the RFMF continue awarding substantial contracts to the same supplier in 2006?

The report itself raised precisely that concern.

It stated that it would be "unethical" for the RFMF to continue doing business with Lotus Garments until the surcharge issues identified by the Auditor-General had been resolved.

Whether that recommendation was ever implemented is not answered by the document.

The Reference to "Election Preparation"

Among the most politically sensitive passages is the discussion surrounding the proposed $6.136 million procurement.

The report stated that inquiries within military stores allegedly revealed that the additional purchases related to "election preparation."

It immediately added that this carried "serious implications indeed."

The document provides no further explanation or supporting evidence for that assertion, and it remains an allegation recorded by the report's author. Nevertheless, viewed against the backdrop of the events that unfolded later in 2006, the observation continues to attract considerable historical interest.

Strong Recommendations Were Made

The report concluded with a series of recommendations that remain striking today. It recommended an immediate surprise audit of the procurement process; that no further business be conducted with Lotus Garments; investigations into payments allegedly supported by false CRVs; disciplinary action against officers responsible; surcharge proceedings; police investigation into the possibility of fraud; stricter procurement controls; and mandatory Major Tender Board approval for major purchases.

Padam Lala Remains Central to the Story

Padam Lala remains central to this historical episode because Lotus Garments featured in virtually every major procurement transaction examined in the report.

However, it is equally important to distinguish between the role of the supplier and the allegations directed at military officials.

The report does not accuse Lala personally of falsifying documents or committing fraud. Rather, it repeatedly alleges that RFMF personnel manipulated procurement procedures, issued unauthorised purchase orders and processed payments improperly while Lotus Garments was the supplier.

That distinction is legally and historically important.

Nearly twenty years later, the unpublished RFMF Budget – Irregularities brief remains an important historical document. It paints a picture of an RFMF that was allegedly bypassing procurement safeguards, committing itself to almost $12 million in expenditure, and relying upon documentation that the report claimed had been manipulated to facilitate payment.

Lotus Garments, owned by Padam Lala, was the company at the centre of those procurement exercises. Yet the report itself directs its strongest criticism towards the military's procurement system and the officials responsible for administering it, rather than making direct allegations of personal wrongdoing against Lala.

The questions raised in 2006 therefore continue to resonate today. Why were earlier Auditor-General warnings apparently not acted upon? Why did Lotus Garments continue receiving substantial military contracts despite previous concerns? Were the report's recommendations ever implemented? And, perhaps most importantly, were the allegations of procurement irregularities ever fully investigated?

Those questions remain part of Fiji's modern political and governance history, and the brief continues to serve as a reminder that transparency and accountability in public procurement are essential safeguards in any democratic society.

The South Pacific Stock Exchange (SPX) and Reserve Bank of Fiji (RBF) ‘knowingly jeopardised the protection of female employees' after Sun Insurance engaged a senior executive who was recently convicted of sex offences.

The Fiji Women's Rights Movement (FWRM) is deeply concerned that leading SPX-listed company Sun Insurance failed to respond to multiple queries sent on e-mail from significant shareholders expressing their strong concern about the hiring of Mohammad Nouzab Fareed, convicted last week and now on remand for two counts of indecent assaults.

After the company’s failure to respond directly to shareholder concerns, FWRM has confirmed the Fareed matter was also reported in writing to both the SPX and RBF with no apparent response.

The facts surrounding Fareed's conviction last week have now been widely reported in the media.

When Sun Insurance made the decision to hire Fareed, FWRM acknowledges, he had the benefit of being presumed innocent until a court passed judgement.

However, Fareed was already convicted for indecent assault in December 2021 ([FJMC 41, Criminal Case 174/2] when the company hired him as the Chief Transformation Consultant.

Fareed was sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment suspended for two years by then-chief magistrate Usaia Ratuvili in a widely publicised case within the business community as he resigned from his previous position as Chief Executive Officer of Fijian Holdings Ltd in December 2019.

Fareed's conviction was quashed by then-High Court judge Salesi Temo in 2022.

“The silence, lack of curiousity and foot-shuffling of SPX and RBF, whose primary responsibilities include market regulation, is astonishing,” said FWRM Executive Director Nalini Singh.

“It is disturbing that the RBF did not even apply its own “fit and proper” fitness test policy to the hiring of employees,” she added.

FWRM believes that the SPX and RBF's lack of focus and urgency addressing multiple written shareholder warnings about a sex offender has clearly jeopardised the protection that the female employees at Sun Insurance should have as a matter of right.

“Sexual violence and indecent assaults are dynamics built around the power imbalance between predator and prey. That the SPX and RBF appear to have seen nothing of concern, despite written warnings, in the power dynamic between this executive officer and the female staff he led is beyond belief,” said Singh.

“When regulatory protections and barriers repeatedly fail to respond, the system itself must be reformed. We need to pull out the rubbish and make sure the prevention of sexual violence overrides anything else the SPX and RBF have convinced themselves might be a more pressing consideration in how they regulate our capital markets.”

“It is terrifying to think that other listed companies may be considering that Sun Insurance sets a precedent for other sex or non-sex convictions or behaviour patterns to be hidden from public sight and put beyond the reach of regulators,” she warned.

FWRM calls for the adoption of a compulsory zero tolerance policy to Sexual Exploitation Abuse and Harassment (SEAH) by all companies publicly listed, and offers training for the leadership of these companies.

Training must start from the top, at the highest levels of leadership.

<<Previous