Fiji News From Around The World

Illustration of High Court strikes Prakash’s constitutional redress

Court Dismisses Prakash’s Redress Bid: What’s Next?

Spread the love

The Suva High Court has dismissed former FijiFirst MP Vijendra Prakash’s application for constitutional redress, instructing him to pay $2,000 to the Attorney General’s Office. Prakash alleged that his right to a fair trial, as enshrined in Section 15 of the 2013 Constitution, had been violated.

In his appeal, Prakash cited the Chief Registrar and the Attorney General as respondents, and included the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) as an interested party. He contended that his rights were infringed upon by a ruling from Justice Thusara Kumarage in October 2022, which imposed conditions on his ability to call evidence during the trial of FICAC vs. Vijendra Prakash, particularly concerning his right to remain silent.

Prakash had been charged and found guilty of providing false information to a public servant and unlawfully securing a financial advantage of $33,679. Following his conviction in February 2023, he received a 36-month prison sentence, with 28 months to be served and the remaining eight months suspended for five years. Unhappy with this outcome, he appealed to the Court of Appeal, but his appeal was dismissed by Justice Isikeli Mataitoga on July 26, 2024.

In ruling against his constitutional redress application, Justice Pita Bulamainavalu deemed it an abuse of process, noting that adequate alternative remedies were available under Section 44(4) of the Constitution and Order 18 Rule 18 of the High Court Rules 1988. Although Prakash was ordered to pay $2,000 to the Attorney General, Justice Bulamainavalu did not impose any costs on FICAC.

This development underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and the procedural integrity of its processes. While Vijendra Prakash has faced setbacks in his legal journey, his story serves as a reminder of the importance of the legal frameworks that govern rights and responsibilities within a democracy.

In summary, the court’s decision highlights the balance between individual rights and judicial process, reinforcing the idea that legal remedies are in place for those who seek justice, even if the path may be challenging.


Comments

Leave a comment

Latest News

Search the website