A no-case-to-answer hearing for businessman Sanjay Kaba was held yesterday before Magistrate Charles Ratakele, with defence counsel telling the court the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) has failed to produce evidence of any criminal conduct tied to an expression of interest (EOI) lodged by Kaba’s company. The hearing represents the latest procedural move in the case and sets the stage for a ruling by Magistrate Ratakele on June 19.
Kaba, who faces one count of obtaining a financial advantage, is accused by FICAC of using inside information and influence while serving as a board member of Telecom Fiji Ltd (TFL) and ATH between January 2017 and January 2019 to secure a tender for his company, Houng Lee Kaba Jacob Ltd (HLKJ). The prosecution alleges Mr Kaba obtained $766,327.22 in payments between June 2022 and July 2023, despite knowing HLKJ was ineligible for the contract linked to TFL’s new office and data centre project.
At the hearing, defence lawyers Devanesh Sharma, Gul Fatima and Wasu Pillay argued the prosecution produced no direct evidence showing what conduct Kaba engaged in, or identifying any confidential information he purportedly used in relation to HLKJ’s EOI. The defence told the court that witnesses who have given evidence so far consistently described procurement processes at TFL as independent, with no observation of improper influence. Lawyers also emphasised that payments to HLKJ were independently verified by TFL personnel.
The defence further challenged the prosecution’s handling of the case, pointing to repeated amendments to the charge. Counsel submitted that the allegations had “shifted over time,” a pattern they said revealed structural weaknesses in the prosecution’s case and amounted to malicious prosecution, and they asked for an acquittal at the no-case-to-answer stage.
Prosecutors Nimisha Shankar and Joseph Work disputed the defence position, telling the court there is sufficient evidence to establish that Mr Kaba used inside information to facilitate HLKJ’s participation in the EOI process. They maintained that the material before the court so far supports every essential element of the offence and warrants the matter proceeding to full hearing.
A no-case-to-answer hearing tests whether the prosecution’s evidence, taken at its highest, is sufficient for a reasonable jury or magistrate to convict; if the magistrate finds the prosecution evidence inadequate, the accused can be acquitted without the defence calling witnesses. Magistrate Ratakele will deliver his decision on whether the prosecution has met that threshold on June 19.
The case has drawn attention because it involves an alleged breach of fiduciary duties by a director of a state-linked utility and substantial sums paid under a project of public interest. The outcome of the magistrate’s ruling will determine whether the matter proceeds to a full trial, or whether the charges against Kaba will be dismissed at this early stage.