Back to back hearing date for Former DPM Prasad, Kamikamica

A back-to-back hearing date will be fixed by the High Court in Suva to hear the Stay application of both former Deputy Prime Ministers, Biman Prasad and Manoa Kamikamica, challenging the appointment of Fiji Independent Commissioner Against Corruption (FICAC).

Judge Justice Siainiu Fa’alogo Bull made the adjournment while hearing Mr Prasad’s case yesterday.

The applicant’s lawyer, Richard Naidu had raised a few issues pertaining to the setting of the timetable, and the interim application for stay.

Mr Naidu told the court Mr Prasad and Mr Kamikamica’s application were similar in nature in that they challenged the appointment of Ms Rokoika.

It was only appropriate that they be called together.

He said during Mr Kamikamica’s case, Ms Rokoika had agreed that she was not appointed by the appointing body- Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and wanted FICAC to clarify that stance for the matter.

FICAC

FICAC lawyer, Joseph Work, told the court he had no instructions about this issue but that of suggested trial dates.

After much consideration, Justice Bull gave a timetable to have all parties make their submission before the matter is called again on January 15 to fix a hearing date.

Mr Naidu has also informed the court that an Interim Stay application is before the court where they are seeking the stay of the proceeding at the Suva Magistrates Court while they deal with the High Court matter.

He said, this application may not be needed at this stage given that the lower court may fix trial dates later next year.

However, if the hearing dates do clash, Mr Naidu said they would then later apply for it.

As of now both parties are looking at possible trial dates between next March 18 to 20.

Meanwhile, the Attorney General’s Office has been struck out from the Criminal proceeding. Representatives from the AG’s Office argued in court that FICAC was an independent statutory body which could handle this case and has been handling the matter from the lower court.

They argued the AG’s Office has never been involved with the proceeding and does not see the need for their presence.

Having no objection from all parties, Justice Bull allowed the struck-out application.