Fijileaks
  • Home
  • Archive Home
  • In-depth Analysis
    • BOI Report into George Speight and others beatings
  • Documents
  • Opinion
  • CRC Submissions
  • Features
  • Archive

Two Chiefs, Two Vanua, One Silent Message: Rabuka’s No-Show in LAU. Rabuka believed it appropriate to be present for Ratu Epenisa Cakobau 'as an individual', then that same logic should have applied to Ratu Ului

10/7/2025

 

*In i-Taukei culture, the chiefly vanua and the political realm are deeply intertwined. By attending one installation and not the other, Sitiveni Rabuka has done more than express a personal preference — he has reignited historical divisions, and possibly signaled that reconciliation with the Mara legacy is still not on his agenda.

Picture

*If national unity is the goal, then reconciling with Lau — and its most iconic political family — may be the most important step Rabuka has yet to take.

Picture
*When asked by fijivillage News on why he did not attend the chiefly installation ceremony in Lau, Rabuka says he was invited as an ordinary person but he decided to only send his wife, Sulueti, who is from Tubou. He also says he had no role to play as the Prime Minister in the ceremony and if he held the iTaukei porfolio, it would have been okay to be invited in his official capacity.
Picture
Picture
When Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka swiftly made his way to Bau in 2023 to pay respects to Ratu Epenisa Cakobau — the newly installed Vunivalu of Bau — he was visibly moved, attentive, and ceremonially present. He did not wait for formal protocol or invitation as Prime Minister.

​He went “in his personal capacity,” he said — a show of humility and cultural reverence, or so it seemed.

Fast forward to the recent installation of Ratu Tevita Uluilakeba Mara in Lakeba, Lau — a chiefly succession of no less cultural gravity — and suddenly Rabuka’s reverence for tradition is qualified, conditional, and bureaucratically hesitant.

This time, the same Prime Minister who once invoked the spirits of his vanua to explain political decisions now insists that he wasn’t invited “as Prime Minister,” and therefore opted not to attend at all. A strange form of cultural selectivity for someone who once wrapped himself in the cloth of vanua values.

The question that inevitably follows is: why the double standard?

Both men — Ratu Epenisa and Ratu Ului — are not just high chiefs. They are direct descendants of Fiji’s political and chiefly royalty. They are both central figures in their respective confederacies — Bau and Lau — and both ascend to positions that shape how i-Taukei Fijians perceive power, legacy, and leadership.

Rabuka’s conspicuous absence in Lau doesn’t escape notice. Nor does the long shadow cast by history: Ratu Ului is the son of Fiji’s founding father, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara — a towering figure who lost the 1987 elections to Dr Timoci Bavadra, resulting in Rabuka's 1987 coups. That history remains unresolved in many quarters, especially in Lau, where memories are long and titles sacred.

Was Rabuka’s absence a quiet political snub? A personal discomfort cloaked in protocol? Or does it reflect a deeper inability to reconcile past wrongs with present responsibilities?

Whatever the case, leaders cannot cherry-pick tradition to suit convenience. If Rabuka believed it appropriate to be present for Ratu Epenisa “as an individual,” then that same logic — or at least the courtesy — should have been applied in Lau. To show respect to both chiefs, both confederacies, and all iTaukei who look to these events as moments of national continuity and cultural depth.

To attend one and ignore the other sends a message, intended or not: that some chiefly seats are worthy of presence, and others are not; that some relationships are reconcilable, and others can be left to fester.

If unity, tradition, and reconciliation are more than political slogans, then leadership must be even-handed in respecting the vanua — not only when it’s convenient, but especially when it’s uncomfortable.

Fiji deserves leadership that doesn’t hide behind invitation lists, but stands tall in the face of history — even its most complicated chapters.

Picture
Picture
Picture

*Sitiveni Rabuka’s historical tensions with the Mara family — particularly with the late Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara — likely played a significant role in his decision not to attend Ratu Tevita Uluilakeba Mara’s installation in Lakeba, even if he claims otherwise.

Picture
Picture

*In May 1987, Sitiveni Rabuka, then a Lieutenant Colonel, staged a military coup to remove Prime Minister Timoci Bavadra, whose multi-ethnic coalition had just defeated the long-dominant Alliance Party led by Ratu Mara. At the time, Ratu Mara was not the target of the coup — he had already lost the election — but Rabuka later re-installed Mara as head of an interim government after the second coup in September 1987. 
​*Over time, Rabuka distanced himself from Mara and began publicly alleging that Ratu Mara had orchestrated or endorsed the coups behind the scenes — a claim Ratu Mara always denied. In his memoirs and interviews, Rabuka has implied that he felt used, or manipulated, by chiefly and political elites, including Ratu Mara.
The Personal Becomes Political
*Ratu Tevita Uluilakeba Mara is not just a high chief; he is Ratu Mara’s son. And in many ways, his installation as Tui Nayau and head of the Vuanirewa clan is seen as a restoration of Mara’s legacy in Lau.
*Rabuka’s absence from the ceremony, while perhaps defensible on procedural grounds, must be viewed through the lens of this fraught personal and political history.
*Attending the installation would have symbolized:
*A full-circle gesture of reconciliation with the Mara lineage, and;
*An affirmation that the past — however dark — has been transcended.
*By choosing not to attend, Rabuka appears to have kept a deliberate distance, reinforcing the perception that old wounds remain unhealed.

Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture

*Welcome for Tongan King, But No Show by Rabuka at Lau Installation

Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture

FALSE and Self-Serving Allegations to Deflect Legitimate Scrutiny. Biman Prasad, 'Campaign against me orchestrated by Supervisor of Elections, FICAC officials, Chaudhrys, Alexandra Forwood, FFP and VICTOR LAL'.

9/7/2025

 
Picture
Biman Prasad’s claim that I “conspired with others” against him is a baseless and self-serving attempt to discredit the serious, evidence-backed findings concerning his breaches of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013.

These are not personal allegations—they are the product of documented investigations and independent verification, including an in-depth Fijileaks exposé that revealed multiple statutory breaches beginning as early as his first declaration in 2014.


If there is any conspiracy at play, it is Prasad’s attempt to weaponise the Commission of Inquiry to silence whistleblowers, mislead the public, and shift attention from his own sustained pattern of non-disclosure and misrepresentation.

Evidence of Breaches: Factual and Independently Verified

Contrary to Prasad’s narrative of a vendetta, the key findings against him stem from objective documentary evidence, not political motivation.

The Fijileaks investigation revealed the following material breaches:
​
  • 2014 False Declaration: Prasad failed to disclose his 5% shareholding in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, despite this being a registrable financial interest under Section 24 of the Act.


Picture
Picture
He also failed to declare:
  • His wife’s beneficial co-ownership of a property on Burerua Street, Suva.
  • The purchase of two off-plan units from Lotus Construction—one of which was later resold for significant profit.
  • The actual value of his shares in Lotus, which he declared at $85,000 when the issued capital was significantly higher.

Each of these omissions is individually capable of constituting a breach of the Political Parties Act, which mandates full and accurate disclosure of assets and liabilities.

Independent Media Exposure is Not Conspiracy

The exposure of these facts—especially Fijileaks—does not amount to conspiracy. Prasad’s attempt to reframe media accountability and investigative journalism as a political attack reflects a fundamental misunderstanding (or deliberate distortion) of democratic accountability.

It is a matter of public interest when a senior Minister has:


  • Repeatedly filed inaccurate declarations to the Elections Office;
  • Benefited personally or through related parties from undeclared assets;
  • Evaded scrutiny despite clear statutory obligations.

To describe legitimate reporting and evidence-based accountability efforts as “conspiracy” is a calculated smear tactic aimed at chilling public discourse and undermining lawful oversight.

Shifting Blame to Whistleblowers is a Sign of Guilt, Not Innocence

Rather than confront the facts, Prasad has chosen to attack the messengers. This follows a well-worn pattern used by public figures attempting to avoid scrutiny. It also raises a serious question:


  • Why has Prasad not publicly corrected his past declarations, even after the breaches were brought to light?
  • Why did he fail to explain or remedy the 2014 and subsequent omissions if they were innocent or inadvertent?
  • Why were basic due diligence and legal obligations as a party leader neglected for a decade?

The Facts Stand Alone

Whether or not Prasad chooses to fabricate conspiracies, the documented facts remain:


  • He failed to disclose material financial interests in multiple declarations.
  • Those omissions were first exposed not by political rivals, but by independent investigations and public records.
  • He has never refuted the facts, only maligned those who brought them to light

There is no “conspiracy”—only evidence, law, and a clear pattern of non-compliance.

*In 2014, if we had caught him out, he would have been in PRISON and NOT in Fiji's Parliament. It is still NOT late to Kick Him out of Parliament

Picture
Picture
When former FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali closed the investigation into Biman Prasad’s superannuation declaration, she was within her power to assess whether a specific legal breach occurred. But when that narrow finding — that the Minister had “breached no law” in relation to a superannuation declaration — was used to shut down all other live complaints against him, she crossed a line from adjudicator to shield.

That one action has caused irreparable harm to the rule of law in Fiji — not because of what it concluded, but because of what it allowed to vanish.

From Superannuation to Silence
​

The public deserves to understand what happened:
  • A file was submitted to FICAC alleging that Minister for Finance Biman Prasad failed to disclose superannuation interests in his statutory declarations.
  • After reviewing that complaint, Commissioner Barbara Malimali closed the file, stating that no law had been breached.
  • But in doing so, FICAC also buried multiple, unrelated and far more serious allegations, including:
    • The $200,000 grant to the Global Girmit Institute (GGI), where his wife was a trustee;
    • His failure to declare that trusteeship in his Political Parties Act declaration;
    • The lack of public tender for GGI’s funding;
    • The Cabinet’s role in approving the allocation, despite the conflict.
These matters — none of which had anything to do with superannuation — have since disappeared from public record and prosecutorial scrutiny.
A Dangerous Precedent for Selective Closure

By allowing a finding on one administrative issue to serve as a blanket closure of all complaints, Malimali set a devastating precedent:

"That a minister can face multiple legal and ethical complaints — and have them all erased by clearing the easiest one first."

No court ruled on the GGI allocation.

No independent legal review addressed the conflict of interest.

No procurement investigation was ever completed.

Malimali simply folded the file, and with it, folded its credibility.

The Public Interest That Was Abandoned

The core issue was never superannuation.
​
It was this:
  • A sitting minister allocated public funds to an entity governed by his spouse.
  • He did not declare that interest in his statutory political disclosures.
  • The grant was issued without a public tender.
  • The Cabinet, informed or not, rubber-stamped a conflicted process.

​None of these were investigated by Malimali.

Who Benefits From Silence?

It is no coincidence that Biman Prasad has faced no investigation, no charges, no public inquiry, while DPP is actively pursued long-past procurement breaches by former ministers — including Frank Bainimarama, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, and Dr. Neil Sharma — for conduct dating back to 2011.

In those cases, FICAC insisted that procurement law matters, and that even procedural breaches were serious enough to warrant prosecution.
​
But in the case of a sitting Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister — with a conflict of interest, direct control of the funds, and active Cabinet involvement — the file was closed quietly and completely.
​
If that is not a double standard, what is?


Picture
It is alleged Bainimarama, who is charged with one count of abuse of office, on 13th September 2011, being the Minister of Finance, recklessly abused his position as the Minister of Finance by granting a waiver of tender process without lawful justification for a Ministry of Health Tender CTN 66/2011 in violation of the Procurement Regulation.
​

Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum is charged with one count of abuse of office and one count of obstructing the course of justice.

ALL NIGHT LONG. FHEC Chairman’s Official KIA Sorento Crashed After Alleged Drinking Binge — Vehicle Now Held by Nasinu Police for Probe

8/7/2025

 
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
The official Kia Sorento assigned to Steve Chand, the Chairman of the Fiji Higher Education Commission (FHEC) has allegedly been abused for personal use and was involved in a crash in the early hours of Saturday morning in Cunningham.

Sources allege the incident followed an all-night drinking session hosted by the Chairman. The government vehicle was reportedly being driven by the Chairman’s driver, who had been sent to purchase more alcohol when the accident occurred.

The damaged vehicle is now being held at the Nasinu Police Station as part of an active investigation.

Authorities are being urged to investigate the apparent misuse of public assets and determine whether any charges—administrative or criminal—are warranted.

Further revelations are expected as the case unfolds.

Picture

COI Judge David Ashton-Lewis Slaps Down 'Cry Baby' Graham LEUNG: FACE IT - You Didn't Do Your Job as Attorney-General in appointment of Malimali as FICAC Commissioner. Kotobalalavu: 'You failed all FIJIANS.'

7/7/2025

 
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Commission of Inquiry chairperson Justice David Ashton-Lewis has hit back at former Attorney-General Graham Leung’s public rejection of the inquiry’s findings, saying Leung “failed to carry out his job” during the controversial appointment of Barbara Malimali.

Speaking to Radio New Zealand (RNZ) on Saturday; Justice AshtonLewis said Mr Leung did not do his job properly.

The exchanges have opened the can worms in the appointment of Ms Malimali as the Commissioner of Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC).

“Well, of course he would publicly reject the findings because he is adversely named. I never said that he conspired. My point was that he didn’t do his job properly;” Justice Ashton-Lewis said.

” … and both of them (Graham Leung and Chief Justice Salesi Temo) failed when they got word that Malimali had complaints against her for abuse of office currently running in FICAC. They should have gone further and stopped her appointment and said we need to do further investigation in that. Neither of them did.”

Justice Ashton-Lewis defended the Commission’s work against claims that it exceeded its mandate.

“They’ve got to produce evidence of that. Ms [Tanya] Waqanika and Ms Malimali may hold that view. All I can say to them is Ms Mason and myself followed the terms of reference absolutely to the final point,” he said.

“Because the terms of reference were not only about Barbara Malimali’s appointment. I found her appointment to be rushed by all those other name people who wanted to get her in. They wanted cases against most of them themselves and other government people closed or thrown out. So I found that the appointment was rushed.

She was appointed illegally, not according to openness and integrity.

“They can say I was wrong. They can say I was biased. I did my job properly.”


Justice Ashton-Lewis said while he anticipated lawyers involved in the inquiry to file an application in the High Court to have the report quashed, citing alleged breaches of the Commission’s terms of reference, he is adamant that the inquiry adhered fully to its legal scope.
Picture
Picture

*My friendship with veteran civil servant Jioji Kotobalavu spans decades, and I fully endorse his view on Graham Leung. He failed to defend the public interest. I also stand with Prime Minister Rabuka in his decision to remove Leung — a move I believe was both justified and necessary. Both men have shown clarity and conviction in addressing Leung’s conduct, and I share their judgment without hesitation.

​*I fully support Justice Lewis's blunt rebuke of Graham Leung - he deserved to be called out for failing in his duties as Rabuka's Attorney-General of Fiji.

Picture
Picture

'Graham Leung cannot have it both ways. He cannot sign off on a judicial appointment, accept the legal gravitas that comes with consultation, and then retreat to the shadows when public scrutiny arrives. The law does not permit it. The public should not tolerate it.
The story, Leung, is not over. It is just the beginning.'

At a recent press conference, Graham Leung downplayed his role in a Judicial Services Commission (JSC) appointment of Barbara Malimali by declaring, “I just signed off. End of story.” He further suggested that his statutory role was merely to be consulted, and that his signature on the JSC form should not be construed as a “ringing endorsement.”

With respect, Leung’s attempt to minimise his legal and constitutional responsibilities is both unconvincing and deeply concerning. Public office is not a matter of passive acquiescence. It is a position of trust and scrutiny—particularly when it involves the administration of justice.

The Law Demands More Than Rubber Stamping

Leung’s claim that the law “only” required consultation is legally superficial. The requirement to consult is not a procedural nicety or tick-box exercise. Jurisprudence from across the Commonwealth, including decisions from the Privy Council and senior courts in Australia, Fiji, and the UK, make it clear that meaningful consultation must be genuine, informed, and active. It is not a perfunctory conversation. Nor is it satisfied by mere silence or passive agreement.

In R (Moseley) v Haringey LBC [2014] UKSC 56, Lord Reed described consultation as requiring a “conscientious consideration” of the issues raised. This standard makes clear that those consulted must be engaged in deliberative judgment, not administrative indifference.

Leung’s language — “I just signed off” — betrays a dereliction of that duty. It is an admission, not a defence.

Signature Carries Legal and Moral Weight

In public law, a signature is not just ink on a form. It represents the conclusion of a legal process in which a public officeholder affirms that due diligence has been exercised, that the process was sound, and that the outcome is within legal bounds. To now suggest that a signature means nothing is to undermine the very foundation of legal responsibility.

Leung’s dismissiveness — “End of story” — flies in the face of accountability. If a judicial appointment later proves controversial, unconstitutional, or unethical, his role cannot be airbrushed out of the narrative.

Accountability Cannot Be Outsourced

Even if the JSC were the primary decision-maker, Leung’s consultative role exists precisely to provide a check on poor or politicised appointments. The fact that the law required his input shows that the legislature anticipated that such appointments should not occur in isolation.

If Leung had concerns but remained silent — or worse, signed off knowing full well the issues — then he is complicit, not exonerated. If he had no concerns, he must now own the consequences. There is no safe middle ground of vague non-responsibility.

A Dangerous Precedent

Leung’s comments set a dangerous precedent for how public officials treat statutory consultation requirements — as hollow formalities. Such thinking breeds impunity. It hollows out safeguards and opens the door to appointments that may be politically driven, procedurally flawed, or legally challengeable.

If the public is to trust institutions like the judiciary — particularly in jurisdictions where judicial independence is fragile — then those who oversee or influence appointments must be held to the highest standard of accountability.

Leung cannot have it both ways. He cannot sign off on a judicial appointment, accept the legal gravitas that comes with consultation, and then retreat to the shadows when public scrutiny arrives. The law does not permit it. The public should not tolerate it.

The story, Leung, is not over. It is just beginning.
​

'In public law, a signature is not just ink on a form. It represents the conclusion of a legal process in which a public officeholder affirms that due diligence has been exercised, that the process was sound, and that the outcome is within legal bounds. To now suggest that a signature means nothing is to undermine the very foundation of legal responsibility.'

Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture

The Finance Minister Who Forgot His Own Institute: Biman Prasad’s 2023 Declaration Omits FIAS Directorship He Campaigned On. Once the votes were counted, seat won, the very title vanished-from his legal obligations

6/7/2025

 
Picture
Picture
Picture
Biman Prasad Boasted of FIAS to Win Votes — Then Hid It from the Law
Picture
In politics, credibility is currency. And during Fiji’s 2022 general election, ​Biman Prasad, leader of the National Federation Party (NFP) and now Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, traded heavily on his role as a respected academic and economist.

To seal his appeal, he flaunted a title: Director of the Fiji Institute of Applied Studies (FIAS).

That title wasn’t incidental — it was central. It appeared prominently on the NFP’s campaign website and in public speeches. It was used to present Prasad as a man of ideas, independence, and global insight — the thinking voter’s candidate.

Picture
But once the votes were counted and the ministerial seat secured, that very title vanished — not from his résumé, but from his legal obligations.

In his 2023 statutory declaration of assets, liabilities and interests (for the year ending 2022), Prasad completely failed to disclose that he was a director of FIAS — the very organisation he invoked to earn public trust. This is not only hypocritical. It is, by any measure, a violation of the Political Parties Act, and potentially a criminal offence.

​
The Law Is Clear — And He Breached It

Under Section 24 of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013, every party leader must declare all directorships or positions in organisations, whether paid or unpaid, in their annual declaration.

Prasad’s declaration for the year ending 2022 should have disclosed his FIAS directorship — the same role he had publicly highlighted during that year’s election campaign. He did not.

This makes his declaration materially false, in direct violation of Section 27(2)(g) of the Act. That provision makes it a criminal offence to:

“make a false declaration or provide false information in any statement or document required under this Act.”

The penalty? A fine of up to $50,000, five years’ imprisonment, or both — and in the case of conviction, automatic disqualification from public office for five years.

Two Faces of Public Life

The deeper problem is not merely legal — it’s moral. Biman Prasad presented one face to the public, and another to the law. To the voters, he was Director of FIAS — an intellectual heavyweight. To the Supervisor of Elections and the Registrar of Political Parties, he was — apparently — nothing of the sort.

That is not a minor oversight. It is a calculated act of omission. He used the FIAS title to enhance his credibility when it served his ambition — and then deliberately withheld it from the legal disclosure process once in power.

This is not just about paper trails. It’s about trust.

 Why It Matters
  • Declarations exist for a reason: to give voters and regulators a full picture of any positions, affiliations, or potential conflicts of interest that public office holders may have.
  • When a senior minister withholds relevant roles, it undermines the system’s integrity — and sets a dangerous precedent for concealment and evasion.
  • Prasad’s directorship may have had policy relevance, influence, or funding implications — and the public had a right to know if he held that role during the election year. 
​
Instead, they were sold a curated image — while the legally required facts were kept in the dark.

What Now?

This is not just a matter for public discussion — it is a matter for investigation.


  • The Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) must launch a formal inquiry into this false declaration under Section 27.
  • The Supervisor of Elections and Registrar of Political Parties must also examine whether Prasad’s non-disclosure affects his standing as a validly declared official.
  • And if found guilty, the consequences must follow the law — including disqualification.

The law is not a tool for ordinary citizens and a shield for politicians. It must apply to all — especially those who write it.

From Boast to Breach


The man who boasted of FIAS when it suited him, now stands accused of hiding it when it mattered most.

That is not merely ironic — it is emblematic of the deeper rot in political accountability.
Biman Prasad should be held to account — not just for what he told the voters, but for what he failed to tell the law.

This is not a technical oversight — it is a matter of public integrity. A Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister who publicly promoted his directorship to voters, but failed to disclose it in a legally required statutory declaration, has breached the Political Parties Act and may have committed a criminal offence.

Prasad’s 2023 statutory declaration, filed pursuant to Section 24 of the Political Parties Act, makes no reference whatsoever to his directorship or involvement with FIAS.

This is a serious omission. Section 24(1)(f) of the Act requires party officials to declare:

“Any directorships or other positions held in any company or organization, whether or not remunerated.”

False Declaration – Section 27(2)(g)
​

The failure to disclose a known, public, and self-declared leadership role constitutes a false declaration under Section 27(2)(g) of the Act, which states:

“A person must not make a false declaration or provide false information in any statement or document required under this Act.”

Statutory Offence and Penalties

A breach of Section 27 constitutes an offence under Section 27(5), punishable upon conviction by:

*A fine not exceeding $50,000,
* for up to 5 years, or
*Both.


Furthermore, under Section 27(6):
​

“A person convicted of an offence under this Act shall not be eligible to hold public office for a period of five years.”

From Fijileaks Archive, 10 August 2024

Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture

From: Ganesh Chand 
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2022, 11:37 am
Subject: FIAS
To: Nadesa Goundar , Biman Prasad, Ravindra Pillay, Rajni Chand Kaushal, Sunil Kumar, Chandra Dulare, sk.clabss 

While CP is getting FIAS registered in Aus[tralia], for Fiji can you think on how we can get it legal again?
Options:
1. re-register as trust
2. register as non-profit entity
3. create an institute within P[acific] P[olytech] (like you have centres etc at USP)
4. create new entity - a new think tank (for which CP is writing the proposal for funding)
G [Ganesh]

Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
​Viti Pulse News Analysis

Controversial Rise of Pacific Polytech: Millions in Public Funds, Political Favouritism, and a Shadow of Conflict.

In just under two years, Pacific Polytech Institute has gone from a little-known private training provider to one of the most heavily funded tertiary institutions in Fiji, Drawing FJD 7 million in the 2025–2026 national budget, up from $5 million last year. The meteoric rise of this newly formed institution has ignited widespread public backlash, raising serious concerns about political favoritism, governance ethics, and the misdirection of taxpayer resources.

At the center of the controversy is Vice-Chancellor Ganesh Chand, a familiar and divisive figure in Fiji’s education landscape, and Finance Minister Biman Prasad, whose personal and familial ties to Pacific Polytech are under increasing scrutiny.

Fiscal Year Allocation (FJD) Notes
2022–2023 $0 No allocation; institute not yet listed
2023–2024 $1 million First direct grant via Higher Education Commission
2024–2025 $5 million Sharp increase, no public tender process
2025–2026 $7 million Current budget allocation

In contrast, institutions such as the University of Fiji and Sangam Institute of Technology, both with decades of service and thousands of students, received only $5 million and $546,000 respectively in the same budget cycle.

The controversy deepened following revelations that Minister Biman Prasad’s wife, Rajni Chand, was formerly a trustee of the Global Girmit Institute (GGI) — the very organization that seeded Pacific Polytech in 2021 with support from Ganesh Chand and international partners.

In 2023, the GGI received between FJD 200,000–500,000 in Girmit celebration funds, despite previously being deregistered by the Registrar of Companies for failing to submit audited financial reports. The organization was re-registered in under 24 hours, just days before receiving its government grant.

Public calls for transparency grew louder after the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) reportedly raided Pacific Polytech and related entities in 2024, searching for documentation on Girmit funding, budget allocations, and internal transfers.

Ganesh Chand’s tenure as founding Vice-Chancellor of the Fiji National University ended in scandal. In 2014, he was charged by FICAC for alleged abuse of office — charges later withdrawn — yet public distrust lingered.

Critics argue his return at the helm of a newly government-funded institution reflects a failure of vetting and a growing culture of political shielding. Internal whistleblowers also allege that resources were transferred from Chand’s other academic ventures, such as the Fiji Institute of Applied Studies (FIAS), to support the launch of Pacific Polytech — a claim yet to be formally investigated.

Minister Biman Prasad has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. Yet the proximity of his wife to the founding trust, his oversight of the national budget, and the extraordinary funding granted to a private institute have led to accusations of conflict of interest and political favouritism.

Former Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry and other political leaders have called for a full-scale audit and independent inquiry into all public monies disbursed to Pacific Polytech, GGI, and associated bodies.

“This is not just a case of misallocation — it’s the politicisation of public education funding at the expense of national integrity,” Chaudhry said in an earlier statement.

While Pacific Polytech received an additional $2 million boost this year, others continue to struggle:
• University of Fiji: $5 million
• Sangam Institute of Technology: $546,000
• Fiji National University: $36.5 million
• USP: $38.5 million, including repayments of arrears

With enrolment figures at Pacific Polytech reportedly under 2,000 students, critics argue it is unjustified to prioritize it over larger institutions serving broader academic and regional needs.

As investigations continue behind closed doors, questions remain unanswered:
• Was there a formal and competitive process for funding allocation?
• Why were conflict-of-interest protocols not triggered within the Ministry of Finance?
• Have any of the entities involved — including Pacific Polytech and GGI — submitted publicly accessible audited accounts?

The funding of Pacific Polytech Institute is quickly becoming a symbol of what many see as increasing political capture of public institutions. Until independent audits are published and legal reviews conducted, the public trust remains compromised.

With the 2025–2026 budget now enacted and Pacific Polytech again among the top tertiary recipients, the question must be asked:

Is this truly about strengthening education — or rewarding loyalty?
Picture
Picture

Electing to Approve Travel Funds Without Authority. Election Supervisor Mataiciwa to Rabuka: 'Biman Prasad approved travel funds for Malimali, Atu Bain to observe India elections. He didn't have the authority to do so'

5/7/2025

 
Picture
Picture

*If Fiji's Finance Minister Prasad allegedly approved travel funds for Barbara Malimali and Dr Atu Bain without having legal or delegated authority to do so, this could potentially amount to misconduct in public office, or breach of financial regulations. Fiji's Financial Management Act 2004, associated Financial Instructions, and the Constitution impose strict rules about how public funds are to be approved and disbursed.
*If Malimali or Atu Bain knew the funding was improperly approved, they might also be exposed to:
*Knowingly receiving unlawful benefits;
*Participating in an abuse of office;
*Breach of public trust because they held public roles.

Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture

*Outgoing Chair of ECF Barbara Malimali did not legally have the right to recommend individuals such as Daniel Fatiaki, Sevuloni Valenitabua or Walter Rigamoto as her permanent replacements.
*All appointments require processing through the Constitutional Offices Commission and formal declaration by the President, per constitutional and electoral law.
*Basically, she had no constitutional or statutory power to attempt to steer appointments by naming individuals as her possible successors.

Picture

Malimali to COC: 'In the meantime, I recommend Dr Atu-Emberson-Bain for the position of Acting Chair of the Commission.'
*NO MANDATE, NO NEUTRALITY: Why Barbara Malimali's Succession Move Threatened Public Trust

PictureDr Atu Emberson Bain
Barbara Malimali had no legal authority to recommend Atu Bain or anyone else as the Acting Chair of the Electoral Commission, either formally or informally. Here’s why:

Legal Framework: Appointment of Electoral Commission Members and Chair


  • Under the Fiji Constitution (2013):
 
  • The Chair and members of the Electoral Commission are appointed by the President, on the advice of the Constitutional Offices Commission (CoC) — [s. 75(2)].
  • The Chair must be a legal practitioner with at least 15 years’ post-admission experience — [s. 75(4)].
  • There is no provision in law that empowers the outgoing Chair to:
    • Nominate an Acting Chair, or
    • Recommend appointments to the CoC.
What About Interim Leadership?

The Constitution and Electoral Act do not provide for an acting appointment process initiated by a sitting or outgoing member. Only the CoC can advise the President on such appointments.

If there’s a vacancy in the Chair, the CoC may meet to advise on a temporary or full replacement, but:
  • It is not triggered by recommendations from Commission members;
  • Any attempt by Malimali to recommend Bain was overreach or improper influence.

Why This Is Problematic?

Undermines Institutional Independence

Even an informal recommendation could:
  • Suggest preferential treatment or partisan intent;
  • Undermine public trust in a neutral appointment process
  • Improper political influence over the Electoral Commission;
  • Bias in succession planning — especially dangerous in an electoral body. 

Violation of Good Governance Standards

This kind of informal recommendation violates:
  • Public service ethics;
  • Good governance principles expected of constitutional officeholders.​

Picture
Picture

5 September 2024 and COI Report on Barbara Malimali. Former Deputy Acting Ficac Commissioner Francis Puleiwai wants Chief Justice Salesi Temo suspended before establishment of Tribunal for 'MISBEHAVIOUR'

4/7/2025

 
Picture
Picture
Picture
Can Chief Justice Salesi Temo Be Suspended for Misbehaviour for Allegedly Interfering With FICAC’s Prosecution of Barbara Malimali?

Yes. If the allegation is proven — that the Chief Justice interfered with a pending or intended prosecution by directing the Chief Registrar to prevent the laying of charges against Barbara Malimali — that would amount to serious judicial misbehaviour, justifying suspension and investigation under the Constitution of Fiji.

Legal Threshold for Suspension – Section 112 of the Constitution

Under the 2013 Constitution:

A Judge may be removed from office only for inability to perform the functions of office (whether arising from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause), misbehaviour or serious breach of a code of conduct.

If the Judicial Services Commission is satisfied that the matter should be investigated, the President must suspend the Judge while a tribunal conducts an inquiry.

Therefore, suspension is justified if there is credible evidence of misbehaviour, pending a full tribunal inquiry.

Why the Alleged Interference Is Misbehaviour

If the Chief Justice:
  • Used his judicial or administrative position to pressure or direct the Chief Registrar to interfere with prosecutorial decisions concerning FICAC, and
  • Caused the blocking of charges against FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali, despite clear prosecutorial intent to proceed, this would constitute:
a. 
Abuse of Judicial Power

The judiciary has no legal authority to direct or restrain FICAC or any delegated prosecutors in individual prosecutorial decisions. That is strictly prohibited under Section 117(3) of the Constitution.

b. 
Obstruction of Justice

Stopping a lawfully contemplated prosecution, especially of a senior official under a corruption watchdog, is obstruction of justice, plain and simple. This is more serious because it concerns internal anti-corruption accountability.

c. 
Undermining the Rule of Law

It violates the most basic principle of the rule of law — that no one is above prosecution, and that the judiciary must not shield any person, particularly a public officer, from due legal process.

3. Role of the Chief Registrar and Prosecutorial Interference

The Chief Registrar Tomasi Bainivalu is not part of FICAC or the DPP’s Office, and has no prosecutorial authority. If the Chief Justice used the Chief Registrar to relay instructions to Ms. Puleiwai (a delegated prosecutor or legal officer handling the matter), this would amount to indirect interference with the FICAC's prosecutorial independence, which is constitutionally protected.

4. Why This Is Worse Than Interference With a Politician’s Case

This case concerned alleged corruption or misconduct by Malimali, Commissioner of FICAC, the very institution tasked with prosecuting corruption. If Salesi Temo was blocking internal accountability, it created a situation where there was no check on corruption at the top of FICAC.

The Chief Justice Salesi Temo's directive to Bainivalu was a systemic threat to:
  • Institutional credibility;
  • Public confidence in FICAC and the judiciary;
  • Constitutional independence of prosecutorial and oversight bodies.​
​
​​Moreover, it was not correct for Temo to appoint Barbara Malimali as FICAC Commissioner without requiring two written references, if that is a requirement under either the FICAC Act, relevant regulations, or judicial appointment protocols that guide such appointments.

His claim — that he appointed her based on observing her “capabilities”  as a defence lawyer — does not satisfy objective appointment standards designed to ensure transparency, merit, and impartiality in public office appointments.

Key concerns:


  1. Departure from procedure:
    If the appointment process formally requires two referees or references, then skipping that requirement is a procedural irregularity. The Chief Justice does not have discretion to override formal legal criteria unless explicitly permitted.
  2. Conflict of interest risk:
    Appointing someone based on personal familiarity or subjective observation in court raises perception of bias or favouritism, especially in an anti-corruption role where independence and integrity are paramount.
  3. Lack of vetting:
    Objective references serve as checks against misconduct, fitness, and integrity. In Malimali’s case, there were known controversies (e.g., her drunken episode with a sitting Judge who was hearing her client's case in Tuvalu). Proper referee vetting might have flagged those issues.
  4. Erosion of public confidence:
    FICAC must be seen as politically neutral and professionally rigorous. Skipping formalities can undermine public trust, especially given widespread concern about politicisation and selective prosecution.

Conclusion:

If the two-referee requirement was mandatory, then Chief Justice Temo’s appointment was procedurally improper. Even if it was only a best practice or standard guideline, ignoring it for personal judgment undermines the credibility and neutrality of both the judiciary and FICAC.

*Barbara Malimali had listed two lawyers, Filimoni Vosarogo and Tanya Waqanika as her potential referees for the Ficac Commissioner's job.

Picture
Picture

Rabuka’s So-Called ‘Pre-Emptive Strike’ was National Betrayal. Rabuka’s justification is both dishonest and cowardly. He did not act to defend the nation; he acted to prevent power from shifting to multi-ethnic Coalition

3/7/2025

 
Picture
Picture
PictureDeposed PM Bavadra
In recent years, Sitiveni Rabuka has attempted to rewrite history — portraying his 1987 military coup as a “pre-emptive strike” intended to protect iTaukei Fijian interests. But the truth is much darker: the 1987 coup was not a defensive act, it was a naked power grab that shattered Fiji’s fragile democracy, institutionalized racial supremacy, and forced tens of thousands of citizens into exile. The cost was generational. The wounds are still open.

A Coup Against Democracy, Not a Threat

Let us be clear: the Labour-NFP coalition government overthrown in May 1987 was democratically elected, led by an iTaukei Fijian, Dr Timoci Bavadra. Its cabinet may have had significant Indo-Fijian representation, but it reflected the will of the people — not a threat to national security. Rabuka’s justification that his actions were a “pre-emptive strike” is both dishonest and cowardly. He did not act to defend the nation; he acted to prevent power from shifting to a multi-ethnic coalition that threatened elite, ethno-nationalist dominance.

What Rabuka pre-empted was not a coup — but equality.

The 1990 Constitution: A Blueprint for Apartheid

Rabuka’s betrayal deepened with the imposition of the 1990 Constitution — a document that enshrined racial supremacy into the heart of Fiji’s legal system. Under this racist regime:
  • Only iTaukei Fijians could become Prime Minister or President.
  • Electoral boundaries and parliamentary quotas were rigged to ensure Indo-Fijians — then nearly half the population — could never lead or govern.
  • Ethnic exclusion was baked into national identity, hollowing out the promise of constitutional democracy.
This was not governance — it was apartheid, island-style. And Rabuka was its chief architect.

Picture

SITIVENI RABUKA had appointed the late Professor Asesela Ravuvu to chair the Committee which came up with the racist 1990 Constitution that disenfranchised Indo-Fijians, Others, and i-Taukei Fijians from urban areas throughout Fiji

Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture

REMORSELESS RABUKA ON BAVADRA'S DEATH: 
​
'On 3 November [1989] Dr Bavadra died after a long battle with cancer. Rabuka's reaction, he recalls, was to FEEL GOOD that his enemy was gone, for a major obstacle had been removed by his death. Bavadra's death confirmed for Rabuka the rightness of his action in May 1987' -

John Sharpham, Rabuka of Fiji, The authorised biography of
Major-General Sitiveni Rabuka

Picture
Picture

Collaborators by Omission: Fiji Media’s Complicity in Illegal Appointment of Malimali as FICAC Commissioner. When future generations ask HOW this was allowed to fester in plain sight - the watchdogs chose to SLEEP

2/7/2025

 

An Unforgivable Abdication
*Now, in the wake of the Commission of Inquiry's revelations, the same media houses that refused to investigate are enthusiastically publishing cherry-picked extracts from a redacted version of the report, released by Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka himself. What they will not tell their readers is this: they had the chance to break [or atleast follow up] this story — and they didn’t. They buried it. The media is not merely a bystander in Fiji’s democracy. It is a co-equal pillar, with a legal and civic duty to expose wrongdoing, not enable it. When that duty is cast aside, public institutions become playgrounds for impunity.
​*The real scandal isn’t just what politicians and officials did behind closed doors. It’s that they were allowed to do it without fear of exposure, because Fiji’s press corps — by and large — fetishizes proximity to power. 
Investigative reporting has been replaced by access journalism.

Picture
Picture
Picture
When future generations ask how a scandal of this scale was allowed to fester in plain sight, we must answer honestly: because the watchdogs chose to sleep. The Commission of Inquiry Report has peeled back the facade of respectability that surrounded Fiji’s governing institutions. It has exposed deceit, concealment, and a systematic abuse of power. Yet the most glaring institutional failure not directly named in the report is one that enabled this all along: the collapse of independent journalism in Fiji.
Picture
Picture
Picture
Let us be specific.

Not a single mainstream media outlet investigated the highly questionable appointment of Barbara Malimali as Commissioner of FICAC. None asked what qualified her. None reported that she had been barred from practising in Tuvalu, a disqualifying fact in any credible jurisdiction. Instead, when FICAC officer Francis Puleiwai did what the law required and arrested Malimali on 5 September 2024, the Fiji media shamefully ran Graham Leung’s public attack on Puleiwai with top billing — without fact-checking, without balance, and without scrutiny of Leung’s own conflicts of interest.

This was not journalism. It was public relations — for power.

Now, in the wake of the Commission’s revelations, the same media houses that refused to investigate are enthusiastically publishing cherry-picked extracts from a redacted version of the report, released by Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka himself. What they will not tell their readers is this: they had the chance to break this story — and they didn’t. They buried it.

An Unforgivable Abdication

What happened here was not a passive failure of judgment. It was an active choice to look away, to avoid controversy, to shield the politically connected. The appointment of a disqualified individual to the country’s top anti-corruption body should have triggered national outrage and front-page headlines. Instead, it received silence — because the truth was inconvenient, and those in charge were untouchable.

This is a constitutional matter. The media is not merely a bystander in Fiji’s democracy. It is a co-equal pillar, with a legal and civic duty to expose wrongdoing, not enable it. When that duty is cast aside, public institutions become playgrounds for impunity.

The Fiji media’s role in this saga is not peripheral. It is central.

The Cult of Power and Proximity

The real scandal isn’t just what politicians and officials did behind closed doors. It’s that they were allowed to do it without fear of exposure, because Fiji’s press corps — by and large — fetishizes proximity to power. Investigative reporting has been replaced by access journalism. Public accountability has been drowned out by “he said, she said” stenography. Worse still, some editors have become outright gatekeepers of what the public is allowed to know — filtering the news through layers of political caution and advertiser influence.

And when someone dares speak up — like the FICAC officer who arrested Malimali — they are vilified, not vindicated.

The Dangerous Illusion of “Neutrality”

Too many in the press have fallen back on the illusion of “neutrality.” But neutrality in the face of corruption is not objectivity. It is complicity. The media is not neutral between truth and falsehood, between legality and abuse, between impunity and accountability.

To print unverified attacks on a law enforcement officer doing their duty — and to never follow up with an investigation into the credibility of the person protected — is not journalism. It is a betrayal of the public trust.

A Call to Reckon — and Reform

Fiji needs a media reckoning. A review of editorial failures. A public apology to the people of Fiji. A renewed commitment to fearless, evidence-based reporting that serves the public interest — not political patrons.

Newsrooms must retool. Journalists must be trained in public law, ethics, and investigative technique. Editorial independence must be rebuilt from the rubble. And civil society must demand it.

This isn’t just about one scandal. It’s about whether Fiji still has a functioning democracy. Because a press that is silent when power breaks the law is not a press at all — it is camouflage for corruption.

The people were misled. The media knew — or should have known. Their silence helped protect a lie. Now, as the truth unfolds, Fiji must remember who told it — and who didn’t.
Picture
Picture
Picture

2008: Fiji Sun columnist Victor Lal and the paper's late Publisher Russell Hunter win the prestigious Robert Keith-Reid Award for Outstanding Journalism:
The former Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry's $2m tax scam

Picture
Picture

2025: The current Fiji Sun publisher is yet to publish an Opinion Piece by our Editor-in-Chief and the paper's former Opinion Columnist on Biman Prasad's threat to bring back media control. According to highly placed sources in the media industry, Prasad has allegedly threatened the Fiji Sun that any adverse commentary against him will result in him reviving the $1million defamation suit he had filed against the old guard.

Picture
Biman Prasad’s Media Threats Cloaked as Concern? Journalists Must Stand Firm

From VICTOR LAL at Oxford

When Finance Minister Biman Prasad appeared to caution the media about what he termed “misinformation” and suggested consequences for irresponsible reporting, the alarm bells rang across Fiji’s press corps. He may argue—perhaps sincerely—that his concern lies with the spread of fake news, particularly on social media. But that concern, however valid, cannot justify rhetoric that chills press freedom or threatens professional journalists.

We must make an important distinction here. Social media disinformation is a global challenge. It can mislead, distort, and provoke. Governments are right to be concerned about its impact. But conflating that problem with independent journalism is dangerous—and deliberate or not, it risks undermining the public’s trust in both the media and in democratic institutions.
​
If Minister Prasad is troubled by fake news, he should support media literacy, invest in fact-checking bodies, and engage constructively with the press.

What he must not do is issue statements that blur the line between criticism and intimidation. Language matters—especially when spoken by a senior member of the Cabinet. Warnings to the media, couched as concern, still carry the weight of threat. Journalists, for their part, should not overreact—but neither should they downplay the implications. The best defence against claims of misinformation is rigorous, ethical reporting. Let the facts speak. But when those in power appear to equate journalism with propaganda or misinformation, the response must be swift, united, and unapologetically clear: we will not be silenced.
​
There is room for dialogue. There is space for accountability on all sides. But there is no room for threats—no matter how politely phrased. The moment a government official hints at “consequences” for the media, a red line is crossed.

The minister’s concern about disinformation may be genuine. His choice of words, however, was reckless. The press in Fiji has fought hard for its voice. It must not be bullied into submission—by fear, by inference, or by the selective misuse of the term “fake news.”
​
This is a moment for the media to reaffirm its role. Not to provoke, but to persist. Not to retreat, but to report—with courage, and without compromise. In a chilling turn for Fijian democracy, Biman Prasad — once a vocal champion of media freedom — is now moving to silence the very institutions that helped restore it.

Recent signals from him indicate a push for tighter control over Fiji’s media, including the possible return of licensing regimes, restrictions on investigative reporting, and harsher penalties for what the government brands as “misinformation.”

Let’s call this what it is: a betrayal of principle and a dangerous slide into authoritarianism, dressed up in the language of national interest.

From Reformer to Enforcer
​

For years, Prasad positioned himself as a liberal reformer — a voice against the censorship and media intimidation of the Bainimarama era. He denounced the draconian Media Industry Development Decree, praised journalists as guardians of truth, and demanded space for dissent and critique.

But now that the media’s spotlight has turned to him — questioning his conflicts of interest, financial disclosures, and alleged interference in independent bodies — Prasad appears to be abandoning that high ground. The same free press he once defended is now, in his words, “divisive,” “irresponsible,” and “a threat to stability.”

It is not lost on the public that those now calling for tighter media control are the very ones facing hard questions.

The Dangers of Muzzling the Press

History — both in Fiji and abroad — teaches us that when governments move to control journalism, corruption flourishes, public trust collapses, and democracy becomes an illusion.

The media’s job is not to flatter those in power, but to challenge them. To investigate, expose, and inform. When journalists uncover mismanagement, abuse of power, or hidden financial entanglements, they are doing their duty — not committing a crime.
​
To suppress the press is to suppress accountability, and to turn politics into a closed shop for the powerful.

Not in the People’s Name

Let us be clear: there is no public mandate for media repression. Fijians have lived through years of gag orders, press intimidation, and newsroom raids. We know what it feels like to have our information filtered, our voices silenced, and our truths buried. We also know that the restoration of media freedom after the 2022 elections was one of the few bright lights in our democratic journey.

If Biman Prasad believes he can use his platform to bully editors, threaten journalists, or push for laws that stifle scrutiny, he is not acting in the public interest — he is acting in self-protection.

And the people will not forget.
​
The Media Must Not Back Down

This is a time for courage.

Fiji’s independent media must hold the line — not with partisanship or sensationalism, but with relentless integrity. The job of journalists is not to be liked, but to be feared by those who abuse power.

Civil society, legal advocates, academics, and ordinary citizens must speak out now — before the space for criticism disappears again.

A Warning, Not a Whisper
​

To Biman Prasad and those in government flirting with censorship: this is your warning. The Fijian people did not vote for silence. They voted for transparency, accountability, and reform.

Clamp down on the press, and you will not be remembered as a protector of the people. You will be remembered as just another politician who feared the truth.

And the truth — however inconvenient — will outlive you.

Picture
Picture

Graham Leung’s Outburst Against the COI Report Is a Legal and Ethical Travesty. The nation should not be cowed by the bravado. What he has offered is a political tantrum wrapped in a Lawyer’s ROBE against COI

1/7/2025

 
Picture

Fijileaks: Every document cited by us contains Leung's fingerprints.
According to Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka's affidavit to the COI, he had instructed Leung NOT to approve Malimali's appointment

Picture
Picture
Picture

Picture
When a former Attorney-General labels a legally constituted Commission of Inquiry (COI) Report as “absurd,” the nation should not be cowed by the bravado — it should ask: What is he trying to hide?

Graham Leung’s public denunciation of the COI Report is not just disrespectful — it is dangerous, dishonest, and self-interested. This was not merely a difference of opinion or spirited legal debate. It was an outright dismissal of a constitutional process, laced with contempt and timed suspiciously as the Commission’s findings cast serious allegations his way.

Let us not mince words: the COI findings reportedly implicate Leung in alleged abuse of office, perjury, and obstruction and perversion of the course of justice — specifically relating to the appointment of Barbara Malimali as Commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC). This is not a minor administrative footnote; it strikes at the heart of public sector integrity and the rule of law.

Rather than respond to these grave accusations with clarity, evidence, or legal rebuttal, Leung chose to impugn the entire process — branding it “rubbish” with the flippancy of someone used to immunity from accountability. But unlike the courtroom, where evidence is tested and arguments are grounded in law, Leung offered nothing more than political theatre. No rebuttal of findings. No engagement with facts. Just bluster.

This is particularly egregious given Leung’s past posturing as a reformer and champion of judicial independence. When faced with allegations of dishonesty and abuse of legal process himself, the mask drops — revealing someone who will trash a constitutional body rather than face scrutiny.

The public must be clear-eyed: this is not about freedom of speech or a principled critique of institutional findings. This is an attempt by a politically connected figure to delegitimise a lawful inquiry that has dared to examine the conduct of the powerful. It is obstruction by narrative — a smear campaign against the very concept of public accountability.

Worse, Leung’s comments have a chilling effect on public confidence. If a former A-G can so casually denounce a Commission chaired by a senior jurist, with witnesses testifying under oath, then what is left of lawful oversight? It sends the message that in Fiji, if you’re elite enough, you can mock the system and intimidate it into silence.

It is worth remembering that Barbara Malimali’s appointment as FICAC Commissioner was deeply controversial from the outset, marred by concerns over political interference and questionable vetting. The COI was tasked with investigating precisely these kinds of potential abuses. If the findings now show that Leung played a central role in manipulating or deceiving that process — through dishonesty or obstruction — then he should face the consequences in law, not hide behind insults.

No one is above the law — and certainly not those who once held the office of Attorney-General. If Leung believes the COI has erred, he knows the proper legal avenues: judicial review, formal legal response, or factual rebuttal. What he has offered instead is a political tantrum wrapped in a lawyer’s robe — unworthy of the profession and deeply corrosive to public trust.

In Fiji’s long journey to institutional integrity, this COI may yet mark a turning point. But only if the public rejects attempts to bully or shame it into irrelevance. Graham Leung’s performance is not just a disgrace to his office — it is an insult to the Fijian people’s right to the truth.

If there is evidence to be tested, let it be tested in a court of law. Until then, the Commission of Inquiry Report stands. And those named in it — including Leung — must answer, not attack.

Picture
Picture
<<Previous
    Contact Email
    ​[email protected]
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture

    Archives

    July 2025
    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012