A senior Telecommunications Fiji Ltd (TFL) manager has told the Suva Magistrates Court that former board member Sanjay Kaba was entitled to and eligible for TFL payments totalling $766,327.22 made between June 2022 and July 2023, in the latest development in a FICAC corruption case. The testimony by TFL’s general manager corporate services, Samuela Vadei, under cross-examination on Tuesday strengthened the defence position that the payments were legitimate and made for services performed under a valid contract.
FICAC’s allegations contend that Mr Kaba, while a board member of TFL and Amalgamated Telecom Holdings (ATH) between January 2017 and January 2019, used information and influence from his position to secure what the commission describes as a procurement process prize for his company, Houng Lee Kaba Jacob Ltd (HLK Jacob). The court has heard that HLK Jacob was awarded project management work for TFL’s new head office project in 2020. Prosecutors also allege Mr Kaba later obtained $766,327.22 between June 2022 and July 2023, knowing or believing HLK Jacob was not eligible to receive that financial advantage.
During his evidence, Mr Vadei agreed with defence counsel that Mr Kaba had the right to receive the payments and that the sums were paid for work carried out in accordance with a contract which he described as valid. Mr Vadei also told the court he was one of three members of the TFL management committee that evaluated nine bidders who submitted an expression of interest for the head office project, and he denied being influenced by Mr Kaba to favour HLK Jacob. He and TFL’s former civil engineering consultant, Isoa Tawaketolu, were the members who made the most recommendations during the evaluation stage, the court was told.
The prosecution was allowed to amend aspects of the charge sheet on Tuesday. The date range in the primary count was altered from 2019 to 2018 after both sides agreed Mr Kaba resigned from the boards of TFL and ATH in 2018. The wording in the charge was also changed from “tender” to “expression of interest,” reflecting the procurement stage under scrutiny. Defence lawyers have previously argued procedural and factual discrepancies in the way the procurement was conducted and in FICAC’s framing of the allegations.
Those amendments are material to the case because they narrow the period during which Mr Kaba is alleged to have held the board positions FICAC says gave him improper influence. Replacing “tender” with “expression of interest” also alters the precise procurement process that is being examined, a distinction the defence has highlighted in submissions about how bidders were selected for the head office work.
Prosecutors indicated they intend to close their case on Tuesday, marking a transition point in the proceedings. If FICAC rests its case, the defence will have the opportunity to call its own witnesses and make further legal arguments. The matter remains before the Suva Magistrates Court, where the next steps will be determined once the prosecution formally concludes its evidence.
Leave a comment