Ravu, Toaisi lawyers challenge FICAC evidence

The lawyers for former Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, Kalaveti Ravu, and the ministry’s regional manager for the North, Tekata Toaisi, have continued to object to the evidence presented by the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC).

This issue was raised in court yesterday after FICAC lawyer Lavinia Ravuikadavu finished the examination of the fourth witness, FICAC senior digital forensic investigator Aporosa Vuinakelo.

Ravu is charged with abuse of office and Toaisi is charged with aiding and abetting after they allegedly interfered with an ongoing investigation into the illegal trading of beche-de-mer on July 25, 2023.

Both defence lawyers made submissions yesterday afternoon before Magistrate Jeremaia Savou citing: 

• the unlawful extraction of evidence without a search warrant and
• that the evidence was extracted without the consent of their clients.

Mr Vuinakelo, in his evidence, told the court that he was tasked to extract the information from the witnesses including principal fisheries officer, Tarisi Shaw, fisheries investigation officer (FIO), Emoni Buatabu, and the two accused persons.

He stated that Ravu’s mobile phone was voluntarily handed over to them in the presence of his lawyer and FIO Meredani Tokanakoro. However, Toaisi’s information was taken from him, and the data was extracted using the FIO’s notes, which contained the pattern to unlock his phone.

Although Mr Vuinakelo told the court that the devices were seized with a search warrant, the court decided not to address the evidence of these warrants since they had not been disclosed to the defence.

Defence submission 

Ravu’s lawyer, Lavi Rokoika, raised in court that section 10 (b) of the FICAC Act 2007 limited its investigators to search and seize evidence from suspects, however it didn’t allow them to extract information.

She said the FICAC Act came in at a time when Fiji was not technologically advanced thus the introduction of the Cybercrime Act 2021, which would give provisions to help deal with electronic or digital information.

She argued the evidence was unlawful in that it was stipulated in Section 14 (2) (k) of the 2013 Constitution.

Ms Rokoika also argued the devices which the FICAC investigators extracted information from, did not belong to them per say but was the ministry’s property.

FICAC response

In response to the submissions, FICAC lawyer Lilian Mausio told the court that the FICAC Act 2007 was independent enough to make the decision. She pointed out that the Cybercrime Act 2021 applied only to cybercrime-related offences, while the duo was charged with abuse of office, which did not fall under that category.

Ms Rokoika agreed with Ms Mausio about Section 25 of the Constitution.

Magistrate Savou said the Bill was currently being reviewed.

The submission made will be reserved until the ruling.

Mr Vuinakelo will be cross-examined by the defence today.

Feedback: Beranadeta@fijisun.com.fj