Lawyer Wylie Clarke has officially notified the prosecution that he will contest the admissibility of specific evidence in the trial involving former prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama, former attorney-general Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, and former health minister Neil Sharma. Clarke, representing Dr. Sharma, indicated that one of the key pieces of evidence to be challenged is a tender evaluation committee report, claiming that crucial source materials, tender documents, and numerous annexures cited in the report have not been disclosed.
The charges against Dr. Sharma and his co-defendants include abuse of office, obstructing the course of justice, and breach of trust by a public servant. These relate to alleged transactions from 2011.
In related developments, Devanesh Sharma, the attorney representing Bainimarama and Sayed-Khaiyum, requested that the trial be expedited, arguing that only 10 of the listed witnesses are pertinent to the case, with the remainder being police officers. Moreover, he expressed concerns regarding a social media comment made by Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions John Rabuku, which arose in connection with Mr. Sharma’s objections to proposed amendments.
Mr. Sharma urged the prosecution to avoid making public comments while the case is ongoing. He provided a screenshot of the exchange to senior State lawyer Pooja Mishra to prevent similar incidents in the future.
Justice Usaia Ratuvili, presiding over the case, emphasized the importance of refraining from public discourse on pending court matters and approved an amendment to the information, particularly concerning the dates involved. Regarding Assistant DPP Laisani Tabuakuro’s affidavit, Justice Ratuvili ruled that it would be admitted to the extent that its contents are administrative.
The trial has been adjourned until March 2, reopening this high-profile case for further proceedings. This development continues to emphasize the legal complexities surrounding significant political figures and underscores the importance of procedural integrity in the judicial process.
Leave a comment