Monthly Archives: March 2026

Professor Wadan Narsey makes a request: March 2026.

17 Tuesday Mar 2026

Posted by in Articles & Reports, Press Releases

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,


I request Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka to note that the FNPF, for the first time, has admitted that a Pension Buffer Fund (PBF) had been established in 1975 and also that it had also been invested for income like all other funds in its possession (FNPF Statement, The Fiji Times, March 7, 2026).

In many of my previous articles I had pointed out (as had the late Jackson Mar independently) that with the proper crediting of interest income, the Pension Buffer Fund had accumulated to more than enough in 2011 to pay the 2012 Pensioners without drawing on the funds allocated to the General Members or drawing on government subsidies.

This last FNPF statement, in response to the article by Daniel Fatiaki and me, falsely denied this latter basic fact while still alleging, falsely, that for FNPF to make full restitution to the 2012 Pensioners, they would need to draw on funds belonging to the General Members or Government.

The FNPF statement of March 7, 2026 went on to speculate on a whole range of solvency issues, nothing to do with the claims by the 2012 Pensioners for fulfilment of their lawful contracts with FNPF, unilaterally broken by FNPF in 2012. There is no need to discuss these other issues which are mere red herrings thrown up by the FNPF management and board.

Here I draw on FNPF’s own statement of March 7, 2026, admitting the existence of the Pension Buffer Fund, and my estimates of its likely size in 1999, 2011 and 2025.

I also regret that the FNPF board and management are now acting like accessories justifying the illegal theft of the 2012 Pensioners’ lawful property.

The Pension Buffer Fund (PBF) set up by Parliament

FNPF has now acknowledged that the PBF was set up by the Ratu Mara Government in 1975 through parliamentary approval for a 2 cents injection from all FNPF members.

Of course, it could be seen as “unfair” to those FNPF members contributing, but who would eventually not take the pension option when they reached 55.

But the primary objective of the Ratu Mara Government was to encourage those retiring at age 55 to take the pension option which would support them until the end of their lives, rather than take the lump sum which in Fiji tended to be frittered away all too soon.

Most importantly, the decision to set up the PBF was a parliamentary decision and therefore the “law” which has to be obeyed, not the views of actuaries seeking generous income from FNPF or World Bank experts who are never accountable to local people anywhere in the world.

The late Jackson Mar and myself have independently estimated that by 1999, the PBF with interest would have accumulated to $535 millions, when pension annuities that year were less than $25m annually.

Clearly, the PBF even then was more than capable of paying another 20 years of pensions without resorting to General Members’ Funds or Government subsidies.

So quite sensibly, the 2 cents injection into the PBF was stopped by Parliament in 1999 and that was also the law and had to be obeyed.

What was also passed by Parliament in 1999 was the higher pension annuity rates steadily coming down from 25 per cent to 15 per cent (by 1 percentage point per year), which I had argued against when I was in the Fiji Parliament in 1999.

I had stated then (and it is in the Hansards records) that the Pension Annuity Rate should have been reduced immediately to 15 per cent, but Parliament decided otherwise. Those higher relatively generous Pension Annuity Rates also were approved by Parliament and became the law.

But the PBF kept growing

Despite the high annuity rates and pensions paid, the PBF kept growing, especially if it had been credited properly with interest.

How utterly outrageous that the FNPF statement (FT March 7, 2026) claims “the assertion that interest should have been credited to the PBF has no basis in law. The PBF was not a separate ring-fenced account owed exclusively by pensioners.”

Hullo, we have never said the PBF was “owned” by pensioners. We have said the PBF was set up by the Fiji Parliament precisely for the purpose of paying pensions and receiving the lump sums of those reaching 55 and choosing the pension option.

The FNPF statement (March 7, 2026) itself acknowledges that the PBF “formed part of the over-all pooled investment fund. All assets were invested collectively and investment income was managed as part of the broader fund reserves”.

Clearly, those funds allocated to the PBF by the Fiji Parliament decision through the 2 cents injection were also earning income. So why should there be any law to stipulate that the PBF should have received interest? Why should the PBF be denied the same interest that was credited to other funds invested by the FNPF?

We point out that by 2011, the PBF ought to have had around $903m, when the total pensions being paid out was a mere $49m, i.e. the FNPF even then was in a position to pay another 18 years of pensions at that level – more than enough given that average life expectancy was only around 65 for males and 67 for females.

It was therefore outrageous for FNPF to claim in 2012 that the PBF would run out in just a few years (as they did in a graph) in order to justify their reduction of the Pension Annuity Rate from 15 per cent to 8.7 per cent.

We do not dispute FNPF reducing the PAR to 8.75% after 2012

Let us be clear that the 2012 Pensioners do not dispute the right of FNPF to reduce the Pension Annuity Rate after 2012 to 8.7 per cent, but that should have been applied only to new retirees at age 55.

What the 2012 Pensioners disputed and took to court was FNPF’s decision to apply that reduction of Pension Annuity Rate to existing pensioners who had lawful contracts signed with FNPF on the 9NOP forms, which declared that they could not change their minds after they signed that Form 9NOP.

FNPF strangely went against the advice from one of their ethical actuaries (Shona Tomkins from firm Promontory) who had stated that reduction of existing pensions would be against “the law of contracts”.

But FNPF callously ignored that sensible advice. Although in a Key Features Statement clearly admitted their guilt when they tried to assure future new retirees “The rates in Table 1 will be regularly reviewed by the FNPF board subject to actuarial advice. Any change in rates in the future will only affect new purchasers, not those who have already purchased the product.”

Ha ha ha. too late for the 2012 Pensioners?

While the FNPF called the reduction of pensions a “reform” it resulted in a total disaster which the FNPF (board and management) to this day have still not acknowledged despite what they can see with their eyes: the total collapse of the Pension Take Up Rate to below 4 per cent by those reaching age 55.

Today, 98 per cent of all retirees at age 55 (yes, 98 out of every 100 new retirees) refuse to take the pension option, but take their lump sums. They do not trust the FNPF after the 2012 robbery.

No amount of costly “rebranding” by the FNPF management and board is going to take away that disastrous reality of totally collapsed Pension Take Up rates. No amount of lipstick on a pig will change the fact that it is a pig.

Note that the FNPF board and all its members blatantly ignore the collapse of the Pension Take Up Rate: It is not even mentioned in their annual reports.

Instead, both FNPF board members and senior management in 2011 went on a propaganda rampage alleging that the FNPF would be made insolvent unless they reduced not just the pension rate for future retirees, but also existing pensioners.

The FNPF article of March 7, 2026, is still making those fallacious arguments against the 2012 Pensioners’ claims when it was abundantly clear that the PBF had more than enough in 2012 to pay the existing pensions without drawing on General Members funds.

We have also shown that the PBF in 2025 with interest credited would have around $1382m.

This massive sum is far more than needed to pay for full restitution of the 2012 Pensioners (backpay plus ongoing pensions at the pre-2012 rate), and still leave some $800m for General Members and the FNPF solvency reserves.

So why do the FNPF board and management keep repeating the falsehood that the General Members or Government will have to “cross-subsidise” the 2012 Pensioners?

Other irrelevant FNPF arguments

Throughout the FNPF statement, over and over, there are claims of FNPF after 2012 needing to satisfy “solvency requirements” set by international “authorities” like World Bank or actuaries.

There is ample data to show that FNPF has never lacked for adequate liquidity.

I see no need to address these arguments as they are totally irrelevant to the claims of the 2012 Pensioners which are based entirely on the illegal trashing of their lawful signed contracts with FNPF (clearly pointed out by former Chief Justice Daniel Fatiaki) and the adequacy of the Pension Buffer Reserve (pointed out by the late Jackson Mar and myself).

FNPF Employees and Board now” accessories” to a robbery

More than a year ago, the FNPF chairman (Daksesh Patel) had lamented to me that while he fully sympathised with the 2012 Pensioners, his “hands were tied” by the 2011 Decrees.

But with this FNPF statement of March 7, 2026, it is clear now that the FNPF management and board members are willing to be accessories to the FNPF’s criminal seizure of the property of the 2012 Pensioners by using all kinds of false arguments to justify it.

Far from being FNPF employees and board members accountable to all FNPF members including the 2012 Pensioners, they have become accessories justifying the 2012 restructuring which the previous Minister of Finance called “illegal”.

Why address PM and not the Minister of Finance?

Why am I addressing Prime Minister Rabuka in this article and not the new Minister of Finance?

Sadly, even though the previous Minister of Finance (Professor of Economics Biman Prasad) had labelled the FNPF action against the 2012 Pensioners as “illegal”, the recent statement by the new Minister of Finance suggests that he does not have the financial acumen to understand the intricacies of FNPF lies about the 2012 Pensioners’ claims.

The new Minister of Finance still calls the 2012 restructure “reforms” the way the FNPF board and management have done consistently.

The new Minister of Finance does not seem to understand that he should not even have issued that statement he did a few weeks ago given that the 2012 Pensioners’ claims are not against Government, but against the FNPF.

Indeed, what role did the FNPF board and senior management have in that statement by the new Minister of Finance?

It is tragic that while the board and FNPF management are supposed to be accountable to all FNPF members and pensioners (including the 2012 Pensioners) they have steadfastly refused to be accountable.

When the previous Minister of Finance (Professor Prasad) had informed me a few months ago that he would consider some compromise solution, I had requested anonymous data on an Excel spreadsheet from the FNPF board on the approximate numbers of 2012 Pensioners, their monthly pensions and their ages, in 2012 and 2025.

I have been contemplating some compromise equitable solution which would fully restore all the low income pensions (including their backpay by three instalments) and put some moderate monthly cap on well-off pensioners so as to reduce the total financial liability for FNPF (I had suggested a cap of around $5000 per month). I am confident most high income pensioners would accept some compromise in order to benefit the low income pensioners.

Sadly, despite all their grand claims in their Vision and Mission Statements about accountability, both the FNPF board and the Minister of Finance have declined to provide me with this information which has absolutely nothing confidential.

How extraordinary and arrogant that FNPF declares in its March 7, 2026, statement “The FNPF does not intend to make further public comments in this matter.”

May I request the Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka to consider the facts that are in this article and discuss a constructive way forward with his new Minister of Finance, the FNPF board chairman and the 2012 Pensioners’ Core Group (chaired by Ross MacDonald) perhaps with the previous Minister of Finance in attendance given that he would understand all the financial issues discussed here.

The Westin and the Widow:

14 Saturday Mar 2026

Posted by in Articles & Reports

≈ Leave a comment

Naulu Mataitini

tsoSreondp4hi2mfmaahm41ff28gm4ugf498340618t260ut0g54g224i8a2 ·

The Westin and the Widow: Why the FNPF Pension Fight is About Prioritisation, Not Poverty

The FNPF finds itself in an increasingly untenable position. On one side, it is locked in a bitter, decade-long battle with the 2012 Pensioners—a group of retirees whose contracts were unilaterally altered, slashing their lifelong income. On the other, it is grappling with the financial fallout from its own ambitious, and allegedly mismanaged, forays into the hospitality industry, namely the multi-million dollar losses associated with the Denarau Westin renovation and the Marriott saga.

The FNPF’s latest defense, articulated in a March 7 statement, is a familiar one: paying the 2012 Pensioners their contractual dues would require “cross-subsidising” from General Members or the Government, threatening the Fund’s solvency. But as economist Professor Wadan Narsey meticulously argues in today’s Fiji Times (P12/13), the existence of the long-ignored Pension Buffer Fund (PBF) fundamentally undermines this narrative of poverty.

This raises a critical, and deeply uncomfortable, question for the FNPF board and the government: Is the resistance to restoring the 2012 pensions truly about a lack of funds, or is it about a profound failure of priorities? If the Fund can absorb the staggering losses from luxury hotel ventures, why can it not honour the solemn contracts of its elderly members?

The argument must shift. We are no longer just debating the legality of the 2012 restructuring, which former Chief Justice Daniel Fatiaki has condemned as an illegal trashing of contracts. We are now debating the moral and financial stewardship of an institution that seems to have its priorities tragically inverted.

Professor Narsey’s calculations, based on the FNPF’s own admission of the PBF’s existence, suggest that by 2012, the buffer fund had accumulated to approximately $903 million. This was a pool of money, established by an Act of Parliament in 1975, specifically to underwrite the pension scheme, that was more than capable of covering the $49 million annual pension bill. Yet, the Fund chose to slash pensions rather than utilise this dedicated reserve.

Fast forward to today. The same institution that claimed poverty in 2012 has since been embroiled in headline-grabbing commercial disasters. The exact figures of the losses at the Westin Denarau Island Resort & Spa renovation and the Sheraton Marriott project are murky, but reports and anecdotal evidence, point to hundreds of millions of dollars in cost blowouts, design flaws, and financial restructuring. These were not acts of God or unforeseeable market crashes; they were investment decisions made by the board and management—the very same bodies now hiding behind “solvency requirements” to deny a few thousand pensioners their due.

This is the crux of the new argument. The FNPF cannot have it both ways. It cannot be an institution with such poor investment acumen that it haemorrhages member funds on luxury developments, while simultaneously claiming to be so financially fragile that it must break the law to survive.

The 2012 Pensioners are not asking for a handout. They are not asking for government subsidies. They are asking for the return of what is rightfully theirs—payments for which they contributed via a specific levy and signed binding contracts. The money, as Professor Narsey illustrates, is demonstrably there. The PBF, which should have grown to nearly $1.4 billion by 2025; if properly credited with interest, is more than sufficient to cover back-pay and restore full pensions, with a surplus left over.

The real “cross-subsidisation” happening here is not from General Members to Pensioners. It is from the Pensioners—and all FNPF members—to a management culture that prioritises glossy, high-risk developments over the fundamental security of its members’ retirement.

The Minister of Finance’s reluctance to intervene, still referring to the 2012 action as “reforms,” suggests a troubling lack of financial acumen or a willful ignorance of the facts. This is not a complex mathematical puzzle. It is a simple test of integrity.

Does the FNPF have the money to pay the 2012 Pensioners? The evidence, from the PBF’s very existence to the vast sums deployed and lost in the tourism sector, screams “yes.”

The only remaining question is whether the institution has the will. Will it continue to act as an “accessory to a robbery,” using false arguments to protect the status quo? Or will it finally acknowledge that the path to redemption lies not in “rebranding” with lipstick, but in honouring the contracts of the very people it was created to serve—even if it means admitting that its priorities, and its investments, have been catastrophically wrong?

FNPF are they good enough? ONE MIND ONE GOAL FB CLAIMS

03 Tuesday Mar 2026

Posted by in Articles & Reports

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

SANJAY KABA AND HIS WEB OF CORRUPTION DURING KHAIYUM & BAINIMARAMA REIGN

1) Momi Bay Hotel project :….- $300m Project to Sanjay Kaba

Sanjay Kaba was appointed to the FNPF board by Khaiyum. The Momi bay project was at the time project managed by a NZ company. He got on the board and fired the NZ company. Having studied all the inside details on the project as board member, he then resigned from the board and put in his proposal to be the new project manager and consultant. Got the project approved by the Board under directive from Khaiyum for $300m of which he took 6% or $18m million dollars.

2) $14m Holiday Inn Renovations:…. for Sanjay Kaba

After approving the purchase of Holiday Inn Hotel by FNPF as a board member on FNPF Board. Sanjay kaba quickly got another $14m approved for renovations at the hotel and became the Project Consultant and Engineers pocketing 6% approx. $1m

3) $40m Renovations approved for GPH:…

Sanjay Kaba sitting on FNPF Board had already got $40m renovations job approved for himself for the GPH Hotel.

This is how corrupt this guy is he should be immediately taken into custody and investigated before he leaves Fiji.

4) FNPF Nadi Building $32m Contract to Sanjay Kaba:……

Sanjay kaba was on FNPF Board. Got inside information about the Nadi FNPF building Project coming up. Got out of the Board for few months. Submitted tender and won the contract for $32m as project engineer and consultants and after that got appoint back on the FNPF Board by Khaiyum.

Both taking home $1m in commission in corrupt dealing stealing FNPF member members retirement fund.

5) My FNPF Building Behind MH :……

– Sanjay Kaba $25m as Project Engineers and 4R as Building Contractors.

Once again, Sanjay kaba gets FNPF the Project Engineer and Consultant contract on the My FNPF plaza behind MH Suva for $25m he was sitting as Board member on FNPF Board. This is clearly a conflict of interest and inside trading.

Where is the transparency and accountability? This is corruption and abuse of the highest level by two people khaiyum and Sanjay Kaba benefitting from the hard-working Fijians retirement fund.

What has FICAC done about this?

Wake Up! They have destroyed your Fijians culture and traditions and now robbing ordinary Fijians of their life savings in FNPF.

6. Navosa Hospital from $6m initial project to $30m:……………………… – Sanjay kaba

Navosa hospital initial project cost for which tender was awarded to Chinese Company with Sanjay Kaba as Project Engineers and Consultant. The Chinese company knew of Sanjay Kaba’s connection with Khaiyum and signed him on as Project Engineers to help them win the contract.

After the project started, Sanjay kaba advised the Chinese contractors to make variations claims which he got approved through his connections in government with Khaiyum. The final cost of the project went from $6m to $30m and Sanjay Kaba and Khaiyum pocketed 6% or $1.8m.

Sanjay Kaba because of inside job wins all major building contract to himself. How is this fair on other building Project Engineers many of who are indigenous business?

7. Sheraton Resort Sale:…….

– Sanjay Kaba pockets millions of dollars.

Sanjay Kaba was on the Board of FNPF involved in the initial purchase of Sheraton Resort by FNPF. The purchase price was $230m. But he made sure in the same deal he got another $130m additional approved for renovations.

He than got out of the FNPF Board and bid for the Sheraton job and was awarded the Project Engineer and Consultant job pocketing 6% of the $130m renovations contract thus pocketing $8m to himself.

This corruption is rife on all the board he is appointed with help of kaiyum and together they are making millions of dollars from the retirement fund of FNPF putting at risk the only financial security the retired workers have.

These two must be put behind bars as they ransacked the FNPF coffers .

Sanjay Kaba is Not Tax and FNPF Compliant since he has not filed his tax returns for last 3 years. How did Sanjay Kaba Win Government Tenders and Serve on Boards as Board member?

Two of the main requirements for any business or person to submit tenders for Government jobs is that they must be tax compliant meaning they must be up to date with their tax returns to FRCS and must pay their employees FNPF contribution on time. This compliance certificate has to be submitted with the tenders.

One of the bidders who bid for the government job was tipped off by staff of FRCS that Sanjay kaba should not be allowed to tender for any Government job because he was not compliant with the requirement of FRCS and FNPF because he and his company had not lodged their tax return since 2020. Also, his staff FNPF contribution to FNPF was also not paid for a number of months.

If this is a requirement to submit tenders, then how come he continues to be awarded government tenders when he is not tax and FNPF compliant. Why did he get this special treatment winning millions of dollars government tenders when businesses who are fully compliant were been overlooked and penalised?

Why is FICAC not investigation Sanjay Kaba and these corrupt deals worth millions of dollars? Have they been directed by Khaiyum to keep the hands of Sanjay Kaba because he is partner in all these deals and himself pocketing millions of dollars.

There is only one way this will be Exposed allow independent investigations in the tenders and projects that Sanjay kaba has received from government and hold all board members and Sanjay Kaba to task defrauding the people of Fiji millions of dollars in corrupt deals.

8. Sanjay Kaba Helps sale of Sheraton Tokiriki owned by Romit of P Meghji and pockets millions:….

During COVID the tourism business was really affected and Sheraton Tokiriki was in dire financial trouble and was near mortgagee sale. Romit of P Meghji who owned Sheraton Tokiriki then approached Sanjay Kaba to get FNPF to buy the hotel.

The price paid by Fijian Holding for the hotel was 10 times higher than what Fijian Holding could have bought on mortgagee sale. The FHL Shareholders would have received much higher return on their investment if the purchase was through mortgage sale as opposed to inside corrupt deals.

However, by assisting his Cousin and buying the property at much higher price, the two shared 50/50 from the millions of dollars paid for the hotel which otherwise would have been bought at less than half the price paid.

This is how Sanjay kaba works behind the scene to rob ordinary FNPF member of millions of dollars.

9. Sanjay Kaba buys new New Property In Tamavua worth Millions. Where does the money come from?

Recently, Sanjay Kaba bought a property in Tamavua from Kalpesh Patel Owner of Autocare in mid-road to clean all the dirty money that Sanjay has accumulated from corrupt deals. Kalpesh Patel is the treasurer of Fiji First election fundraising. He called businesses on behalf of Sanjay Kaba and Khaiyum to give money to Fiji First Party else FRCS will be tipped to investigate them and fined. Small businesses are asked to give $20k and big businesses up to $100k and companies like RCM and Vinod Patel $0.5m.

It was a mafia type operation and those who didn’t give money to fiji First were targeted by FICAC and FRCS.

Why out of so many good businesses only a select group of Khaiyum’s friends got all the deals. ???

Why were other Fijian businesses specially iTaukei businesses didnt benefit from government contracts in their own homeland???

If Fiji has to move forward we need to clean up corruption and send it to the pits.

HOWEVER THE FACTS ARE

Here’s a breakdown of key claims versus available information:

  1. Momi Bay Hotel project ($300m to Kaba, 6% commission ~$18m after resigning from board):
    FNPF did develop the Fiji Marriott Resort Momi Bay (construction completed around 2017, opened as a major investment). Kaba was on the FNPF board from around 2016 onward (confirmed in FNPF annual reports). However, no credible reports confirm he personally received the project management contract, resigned specifically to bid, or pocketed $18m. FNPF annual reports discuss the project as a board-approved investment for member returns, not individual enrichment.
  2. Holiday Inn renovations ($14m, Kaba as consultant, ~$1m pocketed):
    FNPF owns Holiday Inn Suva and undertook refurbishments (e.g., completed around 2018–2019 per reports). Kaba’s board role overlapped with some decisions. No evidence supports him securing the contract personally or taking a 6% cut.
  3. GPH (Grand Pacific Hotel) $40m renovations:
    FNPF has stakes in GPH and has invested in upgrades. No verification of Kaba personally getting $40m in work or approvals for his benefit.
  4. FNPF Nadi Building ($32m contract) and My FNPF Plaza ($25m):
    FNPF has undertaken property developments in Nadi and Suva (e.g., Provident Plaza). Kaba’s engineering firm (HLK Jacob) operates in project management/consulting, but no public evidence ties him to winning these via insider info or rejoining the board corruptly.
  5. Navosa Hospital ($6m to $30m via variations, Kaba as engineer for Chinese firm):
    No credible news or reports link Kaba or his firm to the Navosa Hospital project, cost escalations, or variations benefiting him/Khaiyum.
  6. Sheraton Resort purchase/renovations ($230m purchase + $130m renovations, Kaba pocketing $8m):
    FNPF acquired/holds interests in Sheraton Fiji Resort (Denarau) and related Marriott properties (around 2018). Renovations occurred (e.g., pre-ADB conference in 2019). No evidence Kaba bid and won consultancy post-board exit for personal millions.
  7. Sheraton Tokiriki sale (helped cousin Romit/P Meghji at inflated price):
    No verifiable reports on this specific deal or Kaba’s involvement/sharing proceeds.
  8. Tax/FNPF non-compliance (not filing returns since 2020, yet winning tenders):
    No public FRCS (Fiji Revenue and Customs Service) confirmations or investigations reported on this. Government tender rules do require compliance certificates, but no evidence of special treatment or violations here.
  9. Property purchase in Tamavua (laundering dirty money via Kalpesh Patel/Fiji First fundraising):
    Pure speculation with no evidence. Claims of “mafia-type” extortion for Fiji First donations (threats via FRCS/FICAC) are unsubstantiated and echo broader political allegations against the former government, but lack proof.

Related verified information:
Sanjay Kaba has faced corruption-related charges, but not for these FNPF/hotel claims. In February 2025, FICAC charged him with one count of obtaining a financial advantage (~$766,000) related to a Telecom Fiji Limited (TFL) project management tender (2017–2019), allegedly while on the board without declaring his interest in his company (HLK Jacob). He pleaded not guilty, was granted bail (with variations), and his trial is set for April 2026. This involves conflict of interest but is separate from FNPF/hotel allegations.Broader corruption probes have targeted figures from the Bainimarama/Khaiyum era (e.g., FICAC cases against others), but nothing publicly confirms the sweeping conspiracy described here involving Khaiyum directing deals to Kaba.In summary, the post mixes real elements (FNPF investments in hotels, Kaba’s board roles and engineering background, political connections) with unproven accusations of personal enrichment and systemic corruption. It reads as politically motivated criticism of the former government rather than factual reporting. No major investigations, audits, or court cases have substantiated the bulk of these specific claims. For reliable info, refer to official FNPF reports, FICAC statements, or reputable Fiji media like Fiji Times or FBC News. If new evidence emerges (e.g., from ongoing cases), this could change, but as of now, treat the article as largely inaccurate and sensationalized.