The ruling on a no case to answer application for Suva businessman Benjamin Padarath has been deferred to Monday.

Chief Magistrate Usaia Ratuvili was scheduled to deliver his ruling however it was indicated that the file did not reach his chambers on time.

Padarath is represented by Barbara Malimali for his charge of alleged forgery.

He is charged alongside Suva lawyer Aseri Vakaloloma.

Between October 14, 2009 and December 31, 2009 with intent to defraud the two are alleged to have forged a document namely the Articles of Associations for BECP Engineering Construction Fiji Limited.

The two allegedly made a false page of the Articles of Association by altering the particulars of a subscriber from Adishwar Padarath of 57 Duncan Road in Domain, Suva to Voreqe Bainimarama of 228 Ratu Sukuna Road.

In her submissions for no case to answer Ms Malimali argued that the accusations against her client were based on assumptions and not on evidence.

She dismissed the evidence given by the Fiji Independent Commission against Corruption (FICAC) first witness, former Suva City Council assistant town planner, Josevata Koroi.

She said it was irrelevant because he did not physically verify whether Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama was a resident of house number 228, Ratu Sukuna Road in Domain, Suva or not.

In cross examination, Mr Koroi had mentioned that it was public knowledge that Mr Bainimarama was residing at the address.

Ms Malimali also submitted that in the evidence given by the second witness, Registrar of Companies Abhay Ram, he stated that he was not aware that Page 27 of the Article of Association existed until it was shown to him by the FICAC officials.

Ms Malimali submitted there was no evidence provided by the prosecution and that there was an intention by Padarath to defraud.

She said Page 27 was just a lose document which meant nothing.

Highlighting evidence given by then FICAC chief investigator Suva, Ilaisa Bacau, she questioned the witness whether it was established in his investigation that Padarath did not prepare the document, to which he responded in the affirmative.

He added that he had no idea whether Padarath had used the document in any commercial dealings.

The court also heard that upon further verification Mr Bacau confirmed that the signature on the document did not belong to Mr Bainimarama.

Edited by Karalaini Waqanidrola

Feedback:  fonua.talei@fijisun.com.fj