High Court to rule on mistrial bid on Friday
During submissions yesterday, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Laisani Tabuakuro told the court that a mistrial was necessary due to multiple procedural errors affecting the fairness of the trial.
Tuesday 17 March 2026 | 19:30
From left: Former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, Former Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama and Former Minister for Health Dr Neil Sharma.
Ronald Kumar
The High Court in Suva is expected to rule on Friday on the State’s application for a mistrial in the health tender case.
The trial involves former Health Minister Neil Sharma, former Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama, and former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum. Proceedings were halted last Thursday to address the application.
During submissions yesterday, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Laisani Tabuakuro told the court that a mistrial was necessary due to multiple procedural errors affecting the fairness of the trial.
Related stories
Ms Tabuakuro said the matter should be heard before a different judge to allow key evidentiary issues to be properly addressed.
She also objected to repeated challenges by the defence to evidence she sought to tender through former Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption investigator Alivereti Wakanivesi.
Ms Tabuakuro said the appropriate remedy would be to return to a pre-trial conference, where the defence should have raised its objections.
She also said the three accused had not taken their plea on the amended charge.
Lawyer Wylie Clarke, representing Neil Sharma, told the court the State’s application was misconceived, noting that a mistrial is granted only in exceptional circumstances, typically where the accused’s right to a fair trial has been compromised or where the integrity of the justice system is at risk.
Mr Clarke maintained the State was attempting to introduce inadmissible evidence.
Lawyer Devanesh Sharma, representing Bainimarama and Sayed-Khaiyum, supported Mr Clarke’s position, saying there was no legal basis for the mistrial application as there were no agreed facts at the outset.
Mr Sharma said Mr Clarke was entitled to challenge any evidence presented by the prosecution when it was introduced in court.
He also rejected claims that Justice Ratuvili was giving special treatment to the defence, saying the judge had followed proper procedure by hearing objections from both sides before ruling.
All three accused remain on bail.
Explore more on these topics
Advertisement
Advertise with Fiji Sun