Court Power Play: Lower Courts vs. High Stakes Legal Battles

Lawyer Devanesh Sharma has asserted that lower courts possess the authority to decide on constitutional matters, relating his remarks to ongoing legal proceedings involving former prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama and former attorney-general Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum. They are co-defendants alongside former health minister Dr. Neil Sharma, who is represented by attorney Krishneel Chang.

The case, overseen by Senior Magistrate Sufia Hamza, revolves around allegations of abuse of office, obstruction of justice, and breach of trust linked to actions from 2011. The trio is accused of not adhering to the statutory requirements outlined in the 2010 Procurement Regulations.

Dr. Sharma faces two counts of abuse of office and two counts of breach of trust, while Mr. Sayed-Khaiyum is charged with one count of abuse of office and obstructing justice. Mr. Bainimarama has one charge of abuse of office against him.

Magistrate Hamza noted that the central issue in the motion pertains to the legitimacy of the charges and the appointments from the Director of Public Prosecutions, focusing on the matter of jurisdiction.

Mr. Sharma informed the court that under specific sections of the law, the court is empowered to address constitutional issues but may also choose to transfer such matters to the High Court.

In contrast, DPP attorney Nancy Tikoisuva argued that matters raised under section 290 of the Criminal Procedures Act should be properly resolved prior to any judicial review or requests to suspend proceedings.

Magistrate Hamza instructed both Mr. Sharma and Ms. Tikoisuva to submit their arguments regarding jurisdiction by January 8 of the following year.

Additionally, Krishneel Chang, representing the former health minister, stated that Ms. Tikoisuva had not adequately answered his request for several documents, including the FICAC file, a list of state witnesses, and further disclosures.

Ms. Tikoisuva is expected to respond to Mr. Chang’s requests with submissions. The hearing for the motion is scheduled to reconvene on January 23 next year.

Popular Categories

Latest News

Search the website