Health tender case: No-case ruling delayed to December 4

The High Court in Suva has adjourned the no-case-to-answer ruling involving three prominent people in the health tender case to deal with outstanding legal issues.

Former Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama, former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and former Health Minister Dr Neil Sharma appeared before Justice Usaia Ratuvili today expecting the ruling.

However, the hearing was adjourned after the Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions and lawyers for Sayed-Khaiyum and Bainimarama sought additional time to file and respond to supplementary submissions on the legal issues.

A further legal issue raised during the proceedings concerned the application of Section 173 of the 2013 Constitution. The court was asked to consider whether the provision applied to promulgations, including decrees or regulations, and not necessarily to decisions made under those instruments.

The court was also asked to consider the relationship between the executive decrees under which certain powers were exercised and the decisions relating to procurement waivers.

Justice Ratuvili considered a proposal to have the principal application and supplementary issues dealt with together, allowing the court to determine both matters in a single ruling.

The parties were directed to file their respective submissions, with the court to consider the issues before delivering its ruling.

Dr Sharma’s lawyer, Wylie Clarke, informed the court that they would not be filing submissions on the legal issues but sought to be kept informed of both parties’ written submissions.

The former high-ranking government officials are accused of failing to comply with statutory requirements governing tenders under the Procurement Regulations 2010.

Dr Sharma faces two counts of abuse of office and two counts of breach of trust by a person employed in the public service.

Bainimarama is charged with one count of abuse of office, while Sayed-Khaiyum faces one count of abuse of office and one count of obstructing the course of justice.

The charges stem from a tender process in which a contract was allegedly awarded to a company without lawful justification and in breach of the Procurement Regulations 2010.

The prosecution alleges the decision was arbitrary and prejudicial to the rights of other bidders.

The no-case-to-answer applications seek to have the charges dismissed without the accused being required to present a defence.

The matter was adjourned to December 4.