Stay bid dismissed in Prasad and Waqanika cases

The cases against former Deputy Prime Minister Biman Prasad and Suva lawyer Tanya Waqanika will proceed in the Suva Magistrate Court.

This follow's the dismissal of their application for a stay of proceedings this morning by the High Court in Suva.

Justice Thushara Rajasinghe upheld the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption's (FICAC) authority to investigate and prosecute offences under the Political Parties Act.

Prasad faces one count of failing to comply with disclosure requirements under the Act and an alternative charge of providing false information in a statutory declaration.

Waqanika is charged with publicly indicating opposition to a political party.

The central issue was whether FICAC had jurisdiction under Section 2(a)(c)(i) of the FICAC Act to investigate and prosecute offences arising from obligations imposed on political party office holders.

Justice Rajasinghe rejected the applicants' interpretation, ruling that the phrase "pertaining to any election" under the FICAC Act should be interpreted broadly.

He said an election involved the entire electoral process, not just polling day, and that political parties played a fundamental role in that process.

The court found that disclosure requirements under the Political Parties Act were intended to promote integrity, transparency and accountability within political parties.

It said registered political parties were integral to the electoral system and parliamentary representation, making breaches of their disclosure obligations sufficiently connected to the electoral process.

Waqanika's case

In Waqanika's case, the court found that public support for or opposition to an election candidate brought a public officer's conduct within the electoral process.

Under Section 14(7) of the Political Parties Act, public officers convicted of breaching the relevant provisions face a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment for up to five years.

Justice Rajasinghe concluded that failing to comply with disclosure requirements or providing false information under the Political Parties Act amounted to illegal conduct pertaining to an election under the FICAC Act.

However, the court found that Section 2(a)(i) of the FICAC Act did not apply because the Political Parties Act did not expressly confer that authority on FICAC.