Lawyer Richard Naidu has resorted to every possible legal means to prevent the corruption trial of the NFP leader, BIman Prasad, from going ahead. But he has failed. And the stakes of having done so couldn’t be higher.
For Biman Prasad, it is a calamity. Because if he continues to resist the notion of stepping down until he is cleared of the FICAC charges against him, he will go to the election at the head of Fiji’s oldest political party with those charges potentially unresolved.
Who in their right mind could possibly cling to the leadership under the circumstances? Biman Prasad must go and go quickly. Because the NFP simply cannot win with a man facing a corruption trial as its leader.
For Richard “I have the means” Naidu, it is a lesser calamity but a calamity nonetheless. Because not having the means to derail the case means that his own future is laced with storm clouds.
Facing accusations of a serious conflict of interest in having awarded his client, Fiji Water, a seven year corporate tax holiday while he held the position of Chair of the government’s Fiscal Review Committee, Naidu could well find himself also coming to the attention of FICAC with any change of government.
He was given the position by Biman Prasad and has been totally reliant on that patronage. And now any protection the sidelined deputy prime minister and minister for finance could have given him has gone.
Small wonder Richard Naidu also looked shell-shocked in the wake of the decision by the High Court to reject his application for a permanent stay of proceedings against his patron. His months-long effort to derail the FICAC case has failed. And it isn’t just the gravity of Biman Prasad’s position that looms large on the horizon.
Naidu knows that the implications for the man and the party he supports and advises are disastrous. But the implications for him personally could be just as bad because one central question remains:
Did Richard Naidu and/or his law firm, Munro Leys, gain any financial benefit from Fiji Water when the Fiscal Review Committee, with Naidu at its head, recommended the tax holiday which has saved its billionaire owners tens of millions of dollars? That question isn’t going to go away.
The NFP also needs to get a grip and replace Biman Prasad as leader as soon as possible. Because even with the actual trial now proceeding tomorrow, it is perilously close to the scheduled election under the existing constitution by the first week of February and the official campaign period has already begun.
They are obviously hoping that Biman will be cleared as soon as possible and resume campaigning as if nothing has happened. But it is a hell of a gamble for any political party to build its plans around the assumption of a not-guilty verdict.
If he is found guilty, what hope does a successor have to properly establish themselves as leader in the public mind before election day? The NFP is being held hostage to the whims and ambitions of one man. And that just reinforces the existing perception that the great party founded by AD Patel in 1968 has totally lost the plot.
UPDATE:
“In happier days”, as the Fiji Sun is fond of saying…
The strut has gone out of the biggest cock at the Suva bar. (The one on the right, of course).
Changed fortunes. And it is written all over Richard Naidu’s face.
All in all, to put it mildly, it hasn’t been a great success.
An open letter Grubsheet sent to Richard Naidu two years ago next week. Along with his threat to sue me, I am still waiting for a response.
It’s clear that the dogla Baiman is a selfish and greedy leader who wants to control everything. We read on this blog that during the talks to form the coalition government Baiman was only concerned about his deputy prime ministership and finance minister portfolios. He thus placed NFP in a weak bargaining position and talented women like Lenora and Sashi ended up with assistant ministerships. In contrast the other coalition partner, SODELPA, got full portfolios for all their MPs. This exposed the NFP’s weakness and lack of strategy in negotiations.
Now Baiman is displaying the same greed and selfishness. Had he resigned earlier, Pio Tikoduadua would have been DPM. Once again, by putting himself first before the party and before his fellow MPs, who fought with him in the trenches, Baiman is destroying unity in the party.
Sashi has already resigned. She has seen the writing on the wall. That Baiman is the most pathetic and hated leader in Fiji. If you can call him leader, that is. And that the NFP is doomed to suffer its worst defeat in history, whichever way Baiman’s corruption court case goes.
The NFP management has shown where their loyalty and priority lies. With Baiman, not with the party. NFP board is more concerned about saving Baiman than saving the party. The NFP board is as pathetic as Baiman.
Don’t be surprised if more MPs leave the party because of poor leadership and ethics by both Baiman and the NFP board. They were entrusted with safeguarding the party but together they have succeeded in destroying it.
It looks like they’ve been pulling each other’s hair out.
But in reality it’s the Fiji taxpayers who have had the haircut of a tax holiday for billionaires.
I don’t know whose idea this was, what the hell was anyone thinking? It’s beyond crazy, and makes Fiji taxpayers look like idiots.
Can we please have someone look into how this happened?
The long and short of Biman’s case so far clearly demonstrates one thing…..Biman should urgently fire loud mouth no substance Richard and hire a lawyer who actually knows what to do in order save his ass.
(Eds. This comment has been edited for legal reasons)
With a face that looks like a monkey’s arse, Biman thought he was a handsome Casanova after he became deputy prime minister. The creep used his position to sexually harass women, thinking every woman would fall at his feet, and tried his luck on even his NFP candidate wife, Mrs Taniguchi.
As a woman I applaud Mr and Mrs Taniguchi for making this incident public.
Imagine, he took a picture of her in her own house as a dinner guest, without her permission. His own wife was sitting right next to him. This is the kind of low life that we are dealing with. The sex pest then harassed her with messages.
What did the NFP do? They covered it all up. That is why NFP is suffering today. Because they decided to support a rubbish leader in every sense of the word. Instead of running the party properly and meeting the needs of the voters, he was busy chasing women, the bastard,
Hopefully voters will teach the NFP less than it will not forget in a hurry. As for Biman, take a good look in the mirror before you try to hear us another woman.
I used to have a crush on Richard Naidu growing up, back when he was a journalist and not a lawyer.
For anyone who has a spare 40 mins, please watch this 1988 historical documentary available on YouTube called Paradise in Peril: Fiji – Politics, Military, Coups and Leadership.
A younger idealistic Richard is seen here. Importantly, it clarifies Rabuka’s long-term intent for Fiji.
Around the 22-minute mark:
Journalist:
“But Rabuka’s new constitution will ensure the Indians can never win the majority, so aren’t the Fijians behaving like the white South Africans?”
Rabuka:
“If the South Africans, or the native South Africans, were fighting against the, uh, the imposition of an immigrant race as the government, that would be, uh, parallel to what we’re doing here.”
Journalist:
“But, in a sense, you’ve answered my next question, which was that don’t you perceive in the long term it’s possible that Fiji will be seen as operating its own version of apartheid against the Indians?
Rabuka (SMIRKING):…Isn’t that positive discrimination? Don’t you think it will be perceived by other nations as being simply racist discrimination?”
“Perhaps the difference would be an immigrant race to an indigenous race.”
What’s so special about being indigenous and land that it justifies treating other citizens differently? One day we will all die. There will be no land to cling onto and no man-made identity.
I also believe giving established water-bottling businesses, including Fiji Water — probably Fiji’s best-known international product — a seven-year income-tax exemption is outrageous. Especially when economists are involved; they ought to know better! That is revenue Fiji could have collected rather than relying so heavily on donor partners like Australia. No amount of community work or employment compensates for lost government revenue.
If there’s a conviction then appeals till kingdom come will follow as Biman has the means to do so.
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/fiji-declares-national-crisis-as-lethal-koda-drug-method-drives-exploding-hiv-epidemic/news-story/ff8e44dff47117ea26aa179bb75e4dfc
Do they still say POTE in Fiji?
If so, POTE!
“Dane”, you are dead to me. False identity (the name of the High Court judge, no less), same writing style as the other fake identities already propelled to the outer reaches of cyberspace and personally abusive to boot.
Moce!
NOTE: As I recently signalled, we are being utterly ruthless here in combatting false identities deliberately created to spread propaganda in the election lead-up.
If I’m not satisfied that you are a real person, with a genuine email address for instance, you’ll go straight to the “trash”.
It’s appalling that Richard Naidu would make a law submission that the documents registered in the Govt depository for properties – just because they first appeared online on a Blogsite- doesn’t why have to be treated as hearsay evidence !!
I’m utterly disappointed that in my younger days I used to think Richard Naidu was a credible or an intelligent lawyer !!
Shameful legal submission!!
I am glad we have Graham Davis to write what other journalists in Fiji are too scared or are so biased that they cannot raise or write on these issues !!
Vakaloloma Dina o Viti!! What a corrupt sick nation we have become with imbecile leaders !!
@Silly Richard Naidu, my assessment of most journalists and lawyers in Fiji is they are decidedly dumb. It’s all out there in the media, it’s the result of too much carb-laden free food and too many free drinks at too many events where they turn up for the free chow only.
Richard the bitch Naidu’s lack of courtroom experience is becoming evident. Previously he made the inane submission with FICAC that Biman should not be charged or arrested because as deputy PM and was meeting a senior World Bank executive🤣. A lazy and ill prepared lawyer who’s good for office work, not for the courtroom. Just because he speaks English with an accent and makes a few jokes here and there in a desperate attempt to sound witty, his naive devotees consider him brilliant and are swooning and fawning over him. But he’s being exposed now. Biman would have been better off hiring Devanesh Sharma.
What the hell, this can’t be right, as nobody could make such a blunder:
“Facing accusations of a serious conflict of interest in having awarded his client, Fiji Water, a seven year corporate tax holiday while he held the position of Chair of the government’s Fiscal Review Committee.”
I’m afraid so. That is established fact. What will make it a possible criminal offence will be if he or his law firm received any payment or additional billings from Fiji Water.
The rumours are that he/they did. Which clearly requires investigation by the corruption watchdog.
Richard Naidu has plausible, credible grounds to stand by a claim that he did nothing illegal. He did not personally recommend the tax holiday; the committee did. He did not act with corrupt intent. He did not seek out the Fiji Water relationship. He was not the sole decision-maker, and the final decision rested with the government. The recommendation served a legitimate economic purpose. And the allegations against him are politically motivated.
Whether he should have disclosed his firm’s relationship with Fiji Water is an ethical question, not a legal one. And on the legal question—the only question that matters for potential incrimination—the evidence does not support a finding of criminal conduct.
There you go mate….or as they say in chess , Check mate!
Check mate? What? That “he did not personally recommend the tax holiday, the committee did”. He is the Chair of the Fiscal Review Committee. Of course he recommended it.
“He did not seek out the Fiji Water relationship”. He didn’t have to. Fiji Water is his client. They paid him to represent them in Fiji well before he became Chair of the Fiscal Review Committee.
“Whether he should have disclosed his firm’s relationship with Fiji Water is an ethical question, not a legal one”. Oh really? So you concede that what he did may have been unethical but not illegal. Well we’ll see about that.
I repeat. Naidu was Chair of the Fiscal Review Committee and didn’t publicly declare that conflict of intrest when the Committee he headed gave his client a seven year corporate tax holiday.
The basis for a criminal investigation would be whether in return for that concession, Richard Naidu was rewarded by Fiji Water – either with a personal payment to him or Munro Leys or in extra billings for Munro Leys. ie more work for the company because he had secured its billionaire owners a tax holiday.
That is what needs to be investigated. And If they did, your little “ethical question” turns into an investigation of criminal conduct and there are no two ways about it. Frankly, your suggestion that he behaved unethically is enough for an investigation into professional misconduct.
Richard Naidu is wide open to a FICAC investigation and such an investigation would clearly be in the public interest. Certainly, Grubsheet is told by senior lawyers in Sydney that Naidu would not have got away with any of this in Australia. “They would throw the book at him”, one said.
The rumours are there, variously, that he was personally rewarded by Fiji Water or Munro Leys got extra work to the tune of millions. As the old saying goes, follow the money.
There YOU go, mate.
This is AI’s summary of this issue which could help resolve things:
Summary of the FIJI Water Tax Debate
The controversy surrounding Richard Naidu’s role as Chair of Fiji’s 2023 Fiscal Review Committee (FRC) highlights a sharp divide between political critics and legal supporters regarding governance, conflicts of interest, and potential criminal liability.
The Accusation: Critics argue that heading an advisory body that recommended tax policies benefiting a key client of Naidu’s law firm (Munro Leys) represents an unmanaged conflict of interest. They contend that if Naidu or his firm received increased billings, additional work, or direct benefits tied to these tax concessions, the matter moves from an ethical lapse to potential criminal corruption under the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC).
The Defense: Supporters point out that the 14-member FRC was purely an advisory body whose recommendations were evaluated, decided, and enacted by the Cabinet and Parliament. They argue that non-disclosure of a client relationship is a professional ethics matter rather than a criminal one, unless there is concrete evidence of corrupt intent or a direct quid pro quo.
Legal and Ethical Thresholds: Benefit vs. No Benefit
If a Benefit Was Received: If extra legal billings, success fees, or personal remuneration were received in connection with securing favorable tax policy, the threshold for criminal corruption (e.g., bribery, abuse of office, or illicit enrichment) is met, justifying a formal law enforcement investigation.
If No Benefit Was Received: If billing remained routine and unconnected to FRC recommendations, there is no criminal conduct. However, failing to formally disclose the client relationship or recuse oneself still creates a governance and professional ethics issue, leaving the advisor open to public scrutiny and regulatory inquiries.
Committee Awareness of the FIJI Water Relationship
While Munro Leys’ representation of major corporate clients like FIJI Water was widely recognized within Fiji’s legal and business communities, informal public knowledge is legally distinct from formal governance disclosure:
Informal Awareness: Members of the 14-member committee likely knew of Naidu’s firm’s commercial standing.
Formal Record: Standard governance protocols require that a conflict of interest be explicitly declared on the official record and entered into the FRC minutes prior to discussions on relevant tax legislation.
Lessons for Lawyers in Public Advisory Roles
1. Formal Conflicts Register: Declare all active firm clients prior to accepting public advisory appointments, particularly when advising on taxation or regulatory changes.
2. Mandatory Recusal Protocols: Formally recuse oneself from drafting, discussing, or voting on policy sections that directly affect active clients, and ensure this recusal is recorded in official minutes.
3. Billing Audits: Maintain strict separation between public advisory work and private client billing to prevent any perception of success-based incentives.
4. Separation of Public Policy and Private Representation: Avoid taking on new instructions or expanding existing retainers with clients affected by ongoing public policy reviews.
Actionable Steps to Clear the Air
To address public scrutiny and clarify his role on the Fiscal Review Committee, Naidu could take the following transparent steps:
Publish Conflict Disclosures: Release the relevant sections of the FRC’s official minutes demonstrating whether formal conflict disclosures were made and if recusal took place during deliberations on bottled water taxation.
Issue a Statement on Legal Billings: Clarify that Munro Leys’ client agreement with FIJI Water was entirely standard, pre-existing, and contained no success fees or extra billings linked to FRC recommendations.
Detail the Advisory Process: Outline the collaborative nature of the 14-member committee to demonstrate how tax recommendations were developed collectively rather than driven by a single individual.
Thank you for this. Precisely what needs investigating. A statement from Richard Naidu will not suffice. It is a matter for FICAC.
“If a Benefit Was Received: If extra legal billings, success fees, or personal remuneration were received in connection with securing favorable tax policy, the threshold for criminal corruption (e.g., bribery, abuse of office, or illicit enrichment) is met, justifying a formal law enforcement investigation.”
A whistle blower has lodged a 72 page report on Fiji Water activities. This must be investigated.
@KC sounds as smug and as stupid as Richard Naidu. In terms of exposing his own ineptness as a lawyer, Richard Dick Naidu is a gift that keeps on giving.
The Fiji Water tax holiday is not just a legal or ethical matter. It’s also a political matter. It may have been a financial windfall for Mr. Naidu, but it has been a political and financial disaster for his client, Badhia Biman Prasad, from which there is no recovery. Biman is finished. And he can thank Richard for that.
The Fiji water tax holiday plus the Vat increase recommended by idiot Richard Naidu as the fiscal review committee chairperson has sunk both Biman and NFP into oblivion, although they were both in it together from the start.
That’s Biman‘s reward for listening to Richard Naidu against the advice of experienced ministry of finance staff to not increase VAT. Biman and Richard wanted to go for the low hanging fruit. The easy targets, that is, the masses.
Squeeze the masses and bleed them dry with the vat increase, which would fund the MP’s exorbitant salary increases, the Fiji water tax holiday, and duty free concessions to other elites and businesses like Tappoo. Also, money to his friend, Ganesh Chand, and a few other people who like a professor in Melbourne whose name escapes me. Believe me when FICAC is only touching the tip of the iceberg with Biman. They will find more rot as they dig deeper.
Biman and Richard Naidu have proved what has been alleged for decades. That National Federation party claims to represent the poor but it’s actually a party for the elites and rich business class. NFP just uses the poor and hoodwinks them for votes. Biman thought he could make all kinds of bullshit promises just to get in office. Like cutting ministerial salaries and allowances, and cut out international conferences and traveling. He promised to keep the Minister’s home and focus on making life better for all of Fiji. Even as he was saying, these things on the campaign trail he knew he was lying. He had no intention whatsoever of keeping this promises once he was in power.
Guess who was one of the most traveled Minister in government? Yes, Biman the bastard. He just could not sit his skinny arse in Fiji.
So Biman can thank Richard Naidu, Fiji water tax exemption, and VAT increase for his downfall. Not to mention his own greed and self-serving nature.
With regards to any investigation into Fiji water, FICAC must look into the appointment of that Kiriti Patel girl, who had no qualifications whatsoever, but put there by Biman because according to rumors, she was his girlfriend – she had no other qualification for that position,.
Kirti was Biman’s spy on the committee and an extra vote, as in approval for vat increase, and Fiji water tax holiday. So the whole thing was engineered by Biman, Richard and Kirthi. They thought they were being clever. But it has come back to bite them in their arses like they never imagined.
Sydney law’ copy pasted Ai spiel is precisely the reason why we should be wary of Ai and how we interact and distribute its findings. I’m not sure what your background is but one thing is very clear, it’s not legal!
Your Ai derived summary treats the non-disclosure of the Munro Leys–FIJI Water relationship as a potential governance failure, but this glosses over a fundamental reality: lawyers do not routinely disclose their client lists. Confidentiality is not an incidental feature of legal practice; it is a professional obligation. The summary’s implicit expectation that Naidu should have volunteered his firm’s client relationships to a public committee runs counter to how legal practice functions. Your analysis even acknowledges this tension—noting that “informal public knowledge is legally distinct from formal governance disclosure”—but then proceeds as if formal disclosure should have been the default, which is not how the profession operates. That is why I question why you would use a handle with the words “Sydney law” when clearly you know NOTHING about it!!
Your summary FAILS to acknowledge one simple fact, that is, FIJI Water was and is an established, pre-existing client. This is important and is entirely absent from your summary. You go on to state “if a Benefit Was Received… if extra legal billings, success fees, or personal remuneration were received in connection with securing favorable tax policy”— This creates an inference that Munro Leys might have gained new work or increased billable hours as a result of the FRC recommendations. However FIJI Water was already a client, with existing retainer arrangements unrelated to the tax review there for that that inference collapses. The tax holiday did not create a new lawyer-client relationship; it simply changed the tax environment for an already-existing client.
For your information, FIJI Water has operated in Fiji for decades. In fact Prime Minister Rabuka his government in 1995 granted FIJI Water a 13-year tax exemption—meaning the company has been a significant, long-established presence in Fiji since at least the 1990s . The suggestion that Munro Leys’ relationship with FIJI Water was somehow created or expanded by the tax recommendations misrepresents the timeline.
Your summary also fails to note that the tax change was not a bespoke favor engineered by Naidu. It was a general policy measure applied to the entire water extraction and bottling industry—existing and newly established businesses alike . The 2023-24 Budget exempted income from water extraction and bottling businesses from corporate tax for a seven-year period, while simultaneously increasing the water resource tax from 18 to 19.5 cents per litre for high-volume producers . Prime Minister Rabuka explicitly framed this as a measure to encourage new entrants and existing operators wishing to expand .
Whether one agrees with that policy or not, it was a sector-wide structural change, not a targeted gift to a single client. Your summary’s framing—”tax policies benefiting a key client”—elides this distinction entirely. FIJI Water was not singled out for special treatment; it was subject to the same regime as every other water bottling company in Fiji.
Now let’s get to the crux of the matter here.. The core problem is that your hastily assembled summary treats absence of evidence as evidence of a problem. It offers a framework where the only question is whether a “benefit” was received, and then presents “no formal disclosure” as a residual governance failure. But it never asks the more basic question: was there any new legal work, any new retainer, any new instruction that flowed from the FRC’s recommendations? If the answer is no—if the billing relationship was routine and pre-existing—then the entire criminal-liability framing is not just unproven but structurally inapplicable. Simply put, an existing legal relationship is not a new one! A tax holiday for the industry is not a tax holiday for the exclusive benefit of Fiji Water.
I stand by my argument that your summary implies through its structure what it cannot state through evidence. It constructs a framework that makes Naidu’s conduct look suspicious by omission, while ignoring the practical realities of legal practice and the specific fact that FIJI Water was not a new client acquired through the tax review.
I’d imagine Richard Naidu is a very busy AND successful lawyer and his skill set is a rarity in that neck of the woods. Perhaps a good reason why he is unperturbed by all the noise.
FACT: This was not the reader’s personal opinion. He clearly states it is what an AI platform pumped out when the inputs were entered. Incidentally, he IS a lawyer and someone known to Grubsheet.
FACT: Richard Naidu is a public official due to his chairmanship of the Fiscal Review Committee. He is not a private individual and warrants additional scrutiny for his public role.
FACT: He has not publicly disclosed his blatant conflict of interest in being chair of a body that recommended a tax holiday for an existing client of his.
FACT: Allegations have been made – including one to Grubsheet by another senior lawyer in Fiji – that Richard Naidu/ Munro Leys received a benefit from Fiji Water in exchange for being granted the tax holiday. It is said to be the subject of keen discussion in legal circles, with alleged amounts running into the millions.
FACT: As AI has correctly assessed, if this is indeed the case, then Richard Naidu is liable to criminal proceedings. We have a corruption watchdog for precisely this reason – with a particular focus on the conduct of public officials. And FICAC clearly needs to investigate this matter.
Nice try but your latest comment – like your first – does not address this central issue and smacks of the response of an insider close to Richard Naidu and/or Munro Leys. Because why on earth would you take the trouble to launch such a comprehensive (and inadequate) defence?
Were you someone outside the circle, would you not support the highest level of transparency and accountability under the circumstances?
I think you make some good points. But one of the main things you have omitted is that Naidu wasn’t acting as a private lawyer but as a public official as head of the government appointed Fiscal Review Committee that made direct recommendations to the government, and to a Minister that is also evidently a client. The conflicts are enough to give someone whiplash.
But conflicts of interest are not a fatal problem, they just need careful management. I don’t think anyone can and should accuse Naidu of corruption, but at the same time this is an issue in the public interest.
From my perspective, there are lessons to be learned, and if I was ever offered a public role, I think the abundance of caution approach applies:
1. How is the committee protected – under what regulation or guarantee from government?
2. How are conflicts disclosed and managed.
3. Recusal on any disclosed conflict and noted.
This remains an issue in the public interest and a lawyer is only as successful as their reputation.
Anonymous 9.34am can stuff his legal analysis up Richard Naidu’s filthy arse.
FACT: whether the hypocrite Richard is legally liable or not is beside the point. What has been exposed is that this so called paragon of good governance used his position to advantage his client Fiji Water and law firm, Munro Leys.
At the very least the bastard has been exposed for the hypocrite that he is. Richard, Biman and Biman’s girlfriend on the Fiscal Review Committee, Kirti Patel, clearly colluded on the 7 year tax holiday. That’s why Biman put his girly , Kirti there. To follow his instructions on the committee. And these Dogla Biman used to accuse.Khaiyum of manipulating boards.
All this time they were criticizing FijiFirst for dodgy dealing and improper board appointments. As soon as they got a whiff of power and position, they did exactly the same thing.
What is really appalling is how these traitors betrayed the resource owners and the tax payers of this country. They placed a burden of 15% tax on citizens. Resource owners and tax payers are in effect funding the tax holiday of the billionaire owners of Fiji water. The 15% VAT was a heavy burden, especially for disadvantaged citizens. This is how National Federation Party leader Biman is helping the poor and today he is feeling their curse.
Whether legally liable or not, the tax holiday and the 15% VAT, which the witty genius Richard Naidu recommended, has destroyed Biman’s political career, not to mention his reputation. Currently, Biman is enjoying the contempt of a large segment of the population who hate the very sight of him. Biman can thank his brilliant right hand man, Richard, who, as we speak, is butchering his court case. Hahaha, Richard Naidu, Biman’s gift that keeps on giving.😂
The trolls are out again on this one – multiple comments from separate email addresses that have no history of commenting here, all of them taking a pro-Richard Naidu line in a manner that is repetitive and smack stylistically of emanating from the same source.
You are joining the other trolls in the outer reaches of cyberspace. Yes, the trash.
The latest, which carries the threat of Richard Naidu suing me, is especially intemperate. If Naidu wants to sue me, he knows what to do. Nearly three years ago, he threatened to do so and I am still waiting for the writ.
He is a public official by virtue of his position as head of the government’s Fiscal Review Committee with legitimate questions to answer about his conduct. Bring it on.