FICAC, defence argue over NFP document in Biman Prasad case

The Suva Magistrates Court will rule next Monday on a hearsay objection raised by lawyers for former Deputy Prime Minister Biman Prasad.

The ruling follows oral submissions today by the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) and Mr Prasad’s lawyer over the defence objection to a National Federation Party document FICAC intends to tender through the Fijian Elections Office (FEO) Manager Legal.

FICAC Manager Legal Joseph Work told the court the document was exceptional because it was a public record and could be admitted into evidence.

Mr Work said while the document may have originated from the NFP, the letter related to changes to NFP candidates.

He said it formed part of an updated record held by the Registrar.

Mr Work said registered officers of political parties had a statutory obligation to update their records with the Registrar of Companies.

He said the FEO did not need to be the maker of the document because it certified and kept the records, allowing its representative to give evidence on it.

He said this made the document admissible.

Mr Work cited Section 17 of the Political Parties Registration Act 2013, which covers records of political parties up to subsection (1)(g), including membership registers, constitutions, policies and audited accounts.

He said the records were open to inspection and became public records once they reached the FEO.

Mr Work said the four tests outlined in FICAC’s submissions were guidelines to assist its case.

He also cited sections 3(4) and 18(3) of the Political Parties Registration Act in support of FICAC’s arguments.

Defence lawyer Richard Naidu challenged FICAC’s argument, describing paragraph four of its submission as misleading and “embarrassingly wrong”.

Mr Naidu said Section 17(3) of the Political Parties Registration Act did not mean the documents were open to public inspection.

He also argued that the reference to members of a political party did not necessarily mean office holders.

Mr Naidu again questioned why FICAC could not call the maker of the document, NFP registered officer Dalip Kumar, to give evidence.

He said it appeared FICAC was trying to tender the document through any witness it could and had no intention of calling Mr Kumar.

Mr Naidu said this denied the accused the fundamental right to challenge the prosecution’s evidence through the appropriate witness.

He said relevance preceded admissibility and FICAC had not established an exception to the rule.

Mr Naidu said FICAC had also failed to prove all four tests, arguing that they were not merely guidelines.

During the hearing, Magistrate Joseph Daurewa reprimanded both parties after side comments were made in court and reminded them to stick to their submissions.

Both parties were reminded of their respective roles and the need to maintain professionalism until the case ends.

The court will deliver its ruling next Monday before the trial proceeds.