Magistrate to rule on FICAC evidence dispute in Prasad case

Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) and former Deputy Prime Minister Biman Prasad’s lawyer clashed in court this morning over whether FICAC had fully answered three questions about evidence from a separate investigation file.

The dispute came during the second day of a voir dire hearing before Resident Magistrate Yogesh Prasad at the Suva Magistrate Court.

Defence lawyer Richard Naidu questioned FICAC over its transfer of a witness statement by former National Federation Party (NFP) president Tupou Draunidalo from investigation file FEP 41/24 to the current file, FEP 89/25.

The defence also questioned whether other evidence from the closed file should have been disclosed.

The statements sought by the defence included those of NFP general secretary Kamal Iyer and registration officer Dalip Kumar.

Three questions were raised:

• Did the statements exist?
• Were they disclosed?
• If not, why were they not disclosed?

Mr Naidu argued that the second and third questions had not been answered and accused FICAC and its accused manager legal, Joseph Work, of “hiding behind half-truths”.

He said FICAC investigator Asena Niumataiwalu was correct in saying it was not within her jurisdiction to disclose documents to the defence, but argued Mr Work would have known the contents of the closed investigation file.

Mr Naidu said the prosecutor should also have known about the documents and other evidence and could have saved time by responding to the defence’s emails.

Mr Work objected, saying Mr Naidu had moved away from the three questions and was now focusing on him, despite there being no mention of him or any link to the closed file during yesterday’s hearing.

He argued that the witness had answered all three questions and that, even if the answers did not favour the defence, the court should rule on the issue and allow the trial to proceed.

Work said if the defence believed the State had failed to prove its case, it could apply for a no-case-to-answer ruling.

Mr Naidu asked the court to require FICAC to call witnesses who could answer the second and third questions and to provide the transcript of yesterday’s voir dire hearing.

FICAC is willing to disclose the evidence, but the defence continues to question whether other evidence in the closed file should also have been disclosed.

Magistrate Prasad is expected to rule this afternoon, after which the trial is expected to proceed.