The motion to appeal the conviction and the request for bail for former Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama and former Police Commissioner Sitiveni Qiliho was heard yesterday. The two appeared before Justice Chandana Prematilaka at the Veiuto Complex in Suva for their initial hearing, attended by Bainimarama’s wife, Mary.
During the proceedings, their attorney, Fatima Gul, mentioned that the Notice of Motion against the convictions and sentences was filed with the Fiji Courts of Appeal on April 23, followed by a bail request pending appeal on July 23. She asked the court for permission to submit additional grounds for appeal alongside those already presented.
The appeal focuses on errors in law made by the judge in immediately convicting the appellants after finding them guilty, without following the necessary guidelines established in Section 16 (1)(a), (b), and (c) of the Sentencing and Penalties Act 2009. Additionally, they are requesting that the State’s appeal at the High Court be put on hold until the Supreme Court decides on the legitimacy of John Rabuku’s appointment as acting Director of Public Prosecutions.
The appellants also asked for a stay of the State’s appeal against the sentence until their appeal against conviction is resolved, arguing that proceeding with the State’s appeal first would significantly prejudice their case.
Regarding the bail application, the defense claims they have a strong likelihood of succeeding in the appeal. They argue that the High Court did not err in law regarding the DPP’s grounds for appeal. Moreover, they assert that the Magistrate’s court sentence was valid and that Acting Chief Justice Salesi Temo made a mistake by not recusing himself after having predetermined the appeal against the sentence on April 3. They contend that actions sanctioned by former acting DPP Rabuku violated Section 105 (2) of the 2013 Constitution, rendering them invalid.
The appellants have until November 5 to submit their affidavits concerning the bail request, while the State has until December 3. The matter will be reviewed during that time, and Justice Prematilaka indicated that a hearing date will be established in the next session.