Court to decide if FICAC can amend charges against Prasad

The Suva Magistrates Court will decide whether the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) can amend the charges against former deputy prime minister Biman Prasad after hearing lengthy legal arguments from both sides today.

FICAC senior lawyer Joseph Work told the court the commission intended to amend the charges, particularly the dates in the first charge and by adding a subsection to the alternative charge.

Prasad is charged with one count of failing to comply with statutory disclosure requirements and an alternative charge of providing false information in a statutory declaration.

The matter was heard before Resident Magistrate Yogesh Prasad.

Mr Work argued that while Section 182 of the Criminal Procedure Act gave the court discretion to deal with a defective charge, the proposed amendments would not prejudice or disadvantage Prasad.

He said the amendments were consistent with Prasad's rights under Section 14(2)(c) because they would give him sufficient time to re-strategise his defence.

Mr Work said it was FICAC's standard practice to seek amendments to charges at any stage of proceedings.

He maintained the proposed changes were minor and would not alter the elements of the offence, the number of witnesses or the evidence.

Prasad's lawyers, Richard Naidu and Asish Nand, opposed the application, arguing that Section 24(1) and subsection (b) were different.

"If they are minor provisions, then why amend it?" Mr Naidu asked.

He said the information FICAC now sought to include had been available to the commission for the past nine months and should have been addressed during the pre-trial conference.

Mr Naidu argued FICAC had not explained the defect in the existing charge or how the proposed amendments would rectify it.

He said the defence was simply asking the court to interpret Section 182 according to its wording and intent.

Mr Naidu added that he was less concerned with FICAC's standard practice because the law should take precedence.

The court also heard that the legal authorities relied on by FICAC did not include cases involving applications to amend charges before the commencement of a trial.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court observed that the issue appeared to be one of legal precedent. It also noted that the "non-consultative law" had contributed to the extensive arguments between counsel.

The court may either vacate the trial and allow the charges to be amended before setting a new trial date, or allow the trial to proceed and permit FICAC to seek amendments after the prosecution closes its case.

A ruling is expected on Wednesday.