A key witness in the alleged tender-graft trial of former Telecom Fiji Ltd (TFL) board member Sanjay Kaba told the court yesterday that Kaba had no role in evaluating or deciding the outcome of a 2019 tender, and had resigned from the board before expressions of interest for the project were even invited. Financial controller Ashika Nandini’s testimony directly challenged central elements of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption’s (FICAC) case that Kaba used his board position to secure the contract for his company.
Under cross-examination by Kaba’s lawyers, Wasu Pillay and Devanesh Sharma, Nandini said Kaba resigned from his TFL and Amalgamated Telecom Holdings (ATH) board posts on December 7, 2018 — months before TFL invited expressions of interest (EOIs) in 2019 for project management services relating to its new headquarters and a separate data centre. The comment is a fresh development the defence seized on to argue Kaba could not have influenced the early procurement process.
Court was read a statement taken from Nandini by FICAC investigators in 2025, which records the procurement timeline: nine bidders submitted EOIs, four were shortlisted — including Houng Lee Kaba Jacob Ltd (HLK Jacob), the company linked to Kaba — and only two firms, HLK Jacob among them, presented full proposals in April 2019. HLK Jacob was subsequently awarded the tender in January 2020. Nandini told the court she believed all bidders had been treated fairly during the process.
The defence further relied on Nandini’s evidence that payments totalling $766,327.22 were approved through TFL’s internal procedures, properly vetted, within the approved budget and made in accordance with contractual obligations. That figure and the procedural assurances were put forward as support for the view that TFL’s procurement and payment processes were followed.
FICAC’s case, however, centres on a later period: the anti-corruption agency alleges Kaba obtained payments between June 2022 and July 2023 and that he knew or believed HLK Jacob was ineligible for the financial advantage. Nandini’s account that Kaba had relinquished his board role before EOIs were sought introduces a dispute over whether he had the access or influence FICAC alleges, and lawyers for both sides pressed that point in court.
Nandini also clarified the scope of the procurement documents: the request for proposal related to the headquarters building project, not the separate data centre work. She said five companies were involved in the data centre project, with HLK Jacob acting as project manager on that element, while an international firm handled the data centre construction. Defence counsel emphasised this distinction to argue that the procurement streams were separate and that the RFP in question did not cover the data centre.
The trial resumed today in Suva with proceedings expected to continue as both sides develop their arguments around timing, eligibility and the nature of Kaba’s involvement with HLK Jacob.
Leave a comment