Biman Prasad no-case submission ruling set for Nov 12
The defence challenged the evidence and argued that prosecutors had not established the required intent.
Wednesday 21 October 2026 | 16:30
Updated 21 October 2026 | 20:00 FJT
Former Deputy Prime Minister Biman Prasad with lawyer Richard Naidu outside the Suva Courthouse on September 8, 2026.
Photo: Beranadeta Nagatalevu
The Suva Magistrate Court will determine whether former Deputy Prime Minister Biman Prasad has a case to answer over allegations that he failed to declare his directorship of Platinum Hotels & Resorts.
Today marked the end of three days of submissions on the defence application for a no-case-to-answer ruling.
Both sides argued over the charges and whether the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) had established the elements of the alleged offences.
Related stories
The defence argued that the offences required proof of intent, while the prosecution submitted that intent was not required.
Representing Prasad, Munro Leys lawyers Richard Naidu and Asish Nand argued that intent was an essential element under Section 24 of the Political Parties Act and had not been established.
They also submitted that the charges were defective because they did not expressly state the required mental element.
Mr Nand questioned whether the prosecution had produced credible evidence that Mr Prasad remained a political party office holder at the relevant time, failed to provide the required information or was a director during the period in question.
The defence also questioned the reliability and evidential value of several prosecution documents.
In response, FICAC Manager Legal Joseph Work submitted that even if a mental element was required, the evidence could support an inference of recklessness.
Mr Work argued that the offence provision did not expressly require proof of intent and that the Crimes Act allowed legislation to create strict liability offences.
He submitted that the charges were properly laid and did not need to specify a mental element that the law did not require.
Mr Work also argued that the evidence linked Mr Prasad to a directorship during the relevant period and showed that it had not been disclosed.
The court also heard arguments over documents admitted as agreed facts under Section 135 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
The prosecution submitted that agreed documents could be relied on without further proof, while the defence argued that their authenticity and evidential value were separate questions.
Magistrate Prasad will deliver his ruling on November 12.
