Defence challenges FICAC evidence in Prasad case

The lawyer for former Deputy Prime Minister Biman Prasad has urged the court to dismiss the charges against his client.

He argues that the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) has failed to prove key elements required under the former Political Parties Act.

All parties appeared before Resident Magistrate Yogesh Prasad today for oral submissions on the defence’s application for a no-case-to-answer ruling.

Mr Prasad faces charges of failing to comply with statutory declaration requirements and providing false information in a statutory declaration.

Defence lawyer Richard Naidu focused on Section 24(1)(b) of the Political Parties Act, arguing that the prosecution must establish several preliminary facts before the charge can succeed.

The charge was initially laid under Section 24(1)(a) before being amended to Section 24(1)(b).

Mr Naidu argued that the distinction was important because the two provisions had different legal requirements.

The defence submitted that the prosecution must prove Mr Prasad was appointed to a party office before June 30, 2014, remained in that office after that date, and had not provided the required statement to the Registrar.

He relied on a High Court ruling in the Rabuka case, arguing that the prosecution must formally establish the accused’s status under the party’s constitution.

He said documents in which a person described themselves as a party leader or officeholder were not sufficient.

“The prosecution must prove it,” Mr Naidu told the court.

He argued that if the preliminary elements were not established, Mr Prasad had no legal obligation to comply with the declaration requirements.

Mr Naidu also challenged evidence from prosecution witnesses, saying no one had established that Mr Prasad was formally appointed leader of the National Federation Party (NFP) or was connected to Platinum Hotels & Resorts.

He said the first witness from the Registrar of Companies office, Manase Talemaipapalagi, acknowledged that information in company records had not been independently verified for accuracy or authenticity.

The witness also said he had never visited the company’s offices and had no personal knowledge beyond the documents on file.

The defence questioned the detail of evidence given by former NFP president Tupou Draunidalo. Although she recalled serving as president from 2014 to 2017, Ms Draunidalo said she could not remember many specific dates or events.

The defence also referred to the party’s constitution, arguing that its provisions on office-bearer positions and leadership elections were central to establishing Mr Prasad’s status.

Mr Naidu also referred to evidence from Fijian Elections Office manager legal Mesake Dawai, who agreed that he had no personal knowledge of documents and communications between the Fijian Elections Office and the NFP because he only took up his position in 2015.

Mr Naidu is expected to continue his submissions this morning before FICAC manager legal Joseph Work presents the prosecution’s response.