FICAC has strongly opposed an application for a retrial in the case against former parliamentarian Simione Rasova, telling the court this week that a rehearing would be unnecessary and prejudicial because evidence was already presented during a 2023 trial. The matter is now before Magistrate Joseph Daurewa after earlier proceedings were heard by Magistrate Pulekeria Low.
Lead prosecutor Josann Pene argued that the prosecution had already closed its case in 2023 and that re-running the same evidence would merely duplicate what has been adduced, disrupting Magistrate Daurewa’s case management. Pene also told the court a fresh trial would significantly prejudice the prosecution, noting delays last year when the first witness suffered a medical issue and required a week for their evidence to be recorded.
Rasova faces two counts of providing false information to a public servant and one count of obtaining a financial advantage. The prosecution alleges he falsely stated his permanent place of residence and received $21,350 in allowances between July 2019 and April 2020 to which he was not entitled. Earlier this year a court found Mr Rasova had a case to answer.
Defence lawyer Ruth Fa of Fa & Company told the court the defence had withdrawn a no-case-to-answer appeal on jurisdictional grounds. Fa said the defence is considering filing a review application seeking a permanent stay of proceedings and asked the court for time to prepare written submissions on that possible application.
Magistrate Daurewa has set June 8 for his ruling on the re-hearing application, after both parties lodge written submissions. The matter’s transfer from Magistrate Low to Magistrate Daurewa and the push-and-pull over whether the charges should be reheard mark the latest procedural developments in a case that has seen contested motions since the prosecution’s 2023 case closure.
Bail for Mr Rasova was extended during the latest appearance. The scheduling for written submissions and the June 8 decision will determine whether the trial proceeds at the current magistrates’ court level or whether the defence’s planned review application progresses, potentially seeking a more permanent halting of the prosecution.
Leave a comment