High Court hears tender was approved before disputed emails

Tender approvals had already been completed before disputed emails were received in the 2011 laboratory equipment case, the High Court in Suva heard yesterday during the ongoing health tender trial.

Former Fiji Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Services director Apolosi Vosanibola took the stand to testify in the case involving former FijiFirst Party officials.

Former Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama, former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, and former Health Minister Dr Neil Sharma are facing charges before the court.

Mr Vosanibola told the court he approved payments and responded to emails connected to the 2011 rural laboratory equipment tender now at the centre of the alleged corruption case.

During cross-examination by Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions assistant director Laisani Tabuakoro, the witness confirmed he received emails in July 2011 while the tender process for CTN 66 of 2011 was underway.

He told the court the tender had already been approved when the emails were received.

Briefly

Mr Vosanibola also confirmed Dr Sharma was copied into the email chain, but said he did not discuss the matter further with him.

He said he replied to the email “out of courtesy” because Dr Sharma was not supposed to be included in the communication.

Mr Vosanibola said Hospineer was not the manufacturer of the medical equipment, but acted as a supplier and distributor of laboratory machines and reagents.

He said an advance payment of more than $368,000 was approved for Hospineer General Consultancy in October 2011.

Mr Vosanibola also confirmed the Ministry of Health continued purchasing reagents from Hospineer after the machines were installed because the reagents were compatible with equipment already supplied.

Under cross-examination, defence lawyer Wylie Clarke questioned Mr Vosanibola about missing bidding documents linked to CTN 66.

Mr Vosanibola told the court he had instructed staff to return original tender documents to the Fiji Procurement Office after requests were made by procurement officials.

He further noted that keeping proper tender records was important to maintain transparency and accountability in the procurement process.

The trial continues today.