The Fiji Court of Appeal has upheld the convictions of Joseph Abourizk and Josese Muriwaqa for possessing 49.9 kilograms of cocaine in one of the largest drug seizures in Fiji’s history, while simultaneously reducing their prison sentences after a thorough reevaluation of the case.
In a judgment delivered on November 28, 2025, by Justices Alipate Qetaki, Pamela Andrews, and Gus Wiltens, the court dismissed the defendants’ appeals against their convictions but accepted their appeals regarding the sentences. The Court concluded that while the men were accurately found guilty of drug possession, the original sentences following their 2023 retrial were “set at the wrong level.”
The case traces back to July 13, 2015, when authorities intercepted the two men in vehicle HM046 at a gravel road near Vuda Point, discovering almost 50 kilograms of cocaine concealed in travel bags in the trunk. Initially, the men were sentenced to 14 years in prison, a term later elevated to 25 years by the Court of Appeal. However, their convictions were overturned by the Supreme Court, leading to a retrial.
During the 2023 retrial, Abourizk received a 16-year sentence while Muriwaqa was sentenced to 15 years, both of which prompted further appeals. In the recent ruling, the Court reinforced that the statutory presumption of possession was applicable since the drugs were found in a vehicle accessible to both individuals. The explanation the defendants provided, centered around a supposed yacht owner named “Simon” who allegedly placed the bags in their vehicle, was deemed “implausible” and lacked supporting evidence.
Despite affirming the convictions, the Court recognized errors in the sentencing process, stating the starting points of the original sentences were inconsistent with similar cases. As a result, Abourizk’s sentence was revised to 12 years, with a non-parole period of seven years starting from July 31, 2023. Muriwaqa’s term was reduced to eight years, with a four-year non-parole period.
In concluding its judgment, the Court noted that despite minor errors in evaluating the evidence presented at trial, “no substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred,” affirming the legitimacy of the convictions. This decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that while justice is served, it is also appropriately tempered with fairness in sentencing.
Leave a comment