Prasad, Waqanika await ruling on FICAC powers

The High Court in Suva is expected to deliver its ruling on November 10 on the applications by former Deputy Prime Minister Biman Prasad and senior lawyer Tanya Waqanika to stay their cases while challenging the jurisdiction of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) to prosecute them.

Both parties made their submissions before Justice Thushara Rajasinghe today.

The applicants asked the High Court to halt their cases, arguing that FICAC lacked jurisdiction to prosecute the alleged offences.

Mr Prasad’s lawyer, Richard Naidu, argued that the charges involving an alleged failure to declare a directorship and a false declaration under Section 24(1)(b) of the Political Parties Act related to annual compliance requirements, not election offences.

Mr Naidu submitted that Section 2A(c) of the FICAC Act 2016 applied to “corrupt or illegal conduct pertaining to any election” and argued that the alleged conduct, between December 2015 and January 2016, was not linked to an election.

He said the provision was intended to cover specific electoral offences, such as bribery and undue influence, or conduct affecting a particular election.

The defence also argued that Section 2A(l) of the FICAC Act did not give FICAC the authority to prosecute offences under the Political Parties Act because that law did not expressly grant the commission such powers.

Waqanika’s case

In Ms Waqanika’s case, the defence said the charge arose from a Facebook post allegedly made in 2024 and concerned restrictions on public office holders under the Political Parties Act.

Her lawyers argued that the matter was neither corruption-related nor an election offence.

Justice Rajasinghe questioned whether constitutional provisions limiting the Director of Public Prosecutions’ powers to take over FICAC cases suggested that the commission’s authority was intended to be restricted.

He also queried how conduct involving criticism of or support for a political party could qualify as an election-related offence.

FICAC maintains that its powers are supported by the Constitution, the Electoral Act and the Political Parties Act when read together. The defence argued that this interpretation would give the commission excessive prosecutorial powers.

Justice Rajasinghe directed both sides to file further written submissions before delivering his ruling on November 10.