Prosecution links Biman Prasad to NFP leadership, company directorships

The Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) has argued that documents presented in court link former Deputy Prime Minister and National Federation Party (NFP) leader Biman Prasad to the party leadership and company directorships he was allegedly required to declare under the Political Parties Act.

During submissions on the no-case-to-answer application at the High Court in Suva yesterday, FICAC Manager Legal Joseph Work urged the court to consider the documents together rather than separately.

The prosecution relied on an agreed document which it said recorded Prasad’s position as NFP leader and gave his appointment date as March 29, 2014.

Mr Work said this should be considered alongside other documents relating to Prasad’s appointment as party leader, including a letter sent to the Supervisor of Elections.

The State said the appointment letter outlined how NFP election candidates selected Prasad as leader under Section 13 of the party’s constitution.

Former NFP president Tupou Draunidalo, who testified as the second prosecution witness, reportedly confirmed signing the document.

The defence challenged the appointment letter, arguing that only 23 of the 49 candidates had signed it and that it therefore did not reflect a majority decision.

The prosecution countered that neither the party’s constitution nor the relevant law required all candidates, or a majority of them, to sign the appointment document.

Referring to Section 135 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Mr Work argued that admitted facts could provide sufficient proof unless successfully challenged.

He also disputed the defence argument that the declaration form used did not meet the requirements of the Statutory Declarations Act.

Mr Work argued that a statutory declaration was not limited to forms prescribed under that Act.

He submitted that Section 24 of the Political Parties Act allowed the information to be provided through the form used by the Elections Office.

The prosecution also relied on company records to establish that Prasad held directorships he should have declared.

The court heard that company registration documents, including records of directors and secretaries, listed a person named “Biman Chand Prasad” with the same date of birth as the accused.

A Companies Registry official testified that the date of birth in the records matched information held by the registry about Prasad.

However, the court questioned differences in the recorded place of birth in some documents. Counsel discussed whether the location referred to a village on Vanua Levu or an island in the Yasawa Group.

The prosecution acknowledged the discrepancy but argued that the matching date of birth supported its claim that the records belonged to Prasad.

The State also cited provisions of the Companies Act, arguing that records filed with the Registrar served as prima facie evidence of their contents because companies were legally required to submit and maintain them.

The hearing will continue next Wednesday, when the court is expected to seek further clarification.