London-based blogger and former journalist Victor Lal has rejected allegations by the National Federation Party that he was involved in a political conspiracy against party leader Professor Biman Prasad, insisting his private email simply expressed an opinion that Prasad should step aside while facing criminal charges.
Responding to statements made by NFP General Secretary Kamal Iyer, Lal said the party was entitled to defend its leader but not to misrepresent his motives or the contents of what he described as a private communication.
“Mr Kamal Iyer is entitled to defend his leader Biman Chand Prasad and his party. He is not entitled to misrepresent my motives or the contents of a private email.”
Lal denied attempting to destabilise the party or divide its parliamentary caucus.
“There was no ‘political conspiracy’, no attempt to destabilise the National Federation Party and certainly no plan to divide its parliamentary caucus.”
He confirmed that he had privately written to NFP President Parmod Chand, Defence Minister Pio Tikoduadua and Assistant Foreign Affairs Minister Lenora Qereqeretabua, expressing his view that Professor Prasad should resign as party leader and Member of Parliament while legal matters remained before the courts and investigative authorities.
“I wrote privately to senior NFP members expressing my opinion that Mr Biman Prasad should step aside as party leader and from Parliament while facing criminal charges and while further complaints remain before Fiji’s investigative authorities.”
Lal argued that the position was consistent with the NFP’s own history, pointing to the removal of former party president Dorsami Naidu after criminal charges were laid against him in 2005.
“Indeed, the National Federation Party itself established such a precedent in 2005 when it removed its then president, Dorsami Naidu, immediately after criminal charges were laid against him.”
He questioned why Professor Prasad should be treated differently.
“The obvious question is why Mr Prasad should be treated differently.”
Addressing claims that he had used religion to create divisions within the party, Lal rejected the allegation, saying his email was a private communication to individuals he understood to be practising Christians.
“I began by saying, ‘As we are all believers in the Lord Jesus Christ,’ and quoted 1 Corinthians 5:11 because I believed it raised an ethical issue relevant to public leadership and accountability.”
He said quoting Scripture in a private exchange was an expression of a moral viewpoint rather than an attempt to incite religious hostility.
“Quoting Scripture in a private exchange with Christian politicians is not an attempt to incite religious hostility. It is an expression of a moral viewpoint.”
Lal also dismissed suggestions that he deliberately excluded other NFP ministers because of their religion.
“I simply do not have their personal contact details. I wrote only to those senior NFP members whose contact information was available to me. Any suggestion that my decision was motivated by religion, ethnicity or sectarian considerations is entirely false.”
Responding to references about his role in the FICAC case involving Professor Prasad, Lal said he had never hidden the fact that he lodged complaints with authorities.
“I have never concealed that fact. For several years I have publicly acknowledged submitting documentary evidence to the relevant authorities because I believe those entrusted with public office should be held to the same legal standards as every other citizen.”
He stressed that the outcome of those complaints was a matter for Fiji’s investigative and judicial authorities.
“Mr Prasad, like every accused person, is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.”
Lal concluded by saying the issue was not about him personally, but about political accountability.
“The issue has never been Victor Lal. The issue is whether political leaders should be held accountable to the same standards they expect of others.”
He also challenged the NFP to address what he described as an inconsistency in its treatment of party leaders facing criminal charges.
“Rather than dismissing criticism as a ‘political conspiracy,’ the National Federation Party would better serve the public by addressing the substantive questions that continue to surround its leader. One question, in particular, remains unanswered: why was Mr Naidu required to step down, while Mr Prasad was allowed to continue as party leader?”
