The Suva High Court adjourned the long-running 2011 Ministry of Health tender trial on Wednesday afternoon after a state witness gave inconsistent testimony about whether a search warrant was used to obtain electronic email evidence. The court paused proceedings to verify transcripts and to determine whether the witness’s differing accounts amounted to perjury, a development that could affect the admissibility of key electronic evidence.
The inconsistency arose while the prosecution was questioning Alifereti Wakanivesi, a former investigator with the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC), about “govnet” email exchanges that form part of the prosecution’s case. During morning testimony Wakanivesi said he was unsure if a search warrant had been used to secure the emails. In later evidence, however, he asserted he had obtained the emails via a search warrant. Defence counsel Wylie Clarke immediately objected to that reversal.
Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Laisani Tabuakuro told Justice Dane Tuiqereqere the state did not have a physical copy of a warrant to tender, but her instructions were that Wakanivesi had executed one with ITC services to obtain the govnet emails. Tabuakuro told the court the prosecution wished to lead the evidence on the basis of the witness’s latest claim, and said she would verify Wakanivesi’s earlier statement in the day’s transcript. She added that, to her knowledge, the emails had been in the defence’s possession since 2024 without prior objection.
Tabuakuro told the court she would withdraw the evidence if the transcript contradicted Wakanivesi’s later assertion that a warrant had been executed. Clarke asked the court for a formal ruling on his objection once the transcript verification was complete, arguing the inconsistency raised questions of credibility and the proper disclosure and chain of custody for electronic material.
Justice Tuiqereqere adjourned the trial to allow the prosecution time to check the transcript and to consider whether the witness’s earlier words constituted perjury. The judge set the matter to resume tomorrow. The trial involves former Health Minister Dr. Neil Sharma and also names former prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama and former attorney-general Aiyaz Sayed‑Khaiyum among those implicated in the 2011 tender proceedings.
The dispute over how the govnet emails were obtained touches on both procedural and evidentiary issues: whether appropriate authorisations were in place for state access to the emails, whether the documentation exists to support that access, and what effect any discrepancy in testimony might have on the prosecution’s case. Electronic evidence and its lawful acquisition have been a recurring focus in complex prosecutions in recent years, with courts increasingly scrutinising the chain of custody and forensic integrity of digital records.
This adjournment follows several earlier hearings in the multi-defendant matter, which has periodically returned to the High Court as parties contest the admissibility of evidence and seek disclosure. With the court set to reconvene tomorrow, the immediate question for the prosecution is whether the transcript review will corroborate Wakanivesi’s later statement or expose a contradiction that could prompt withdrawal of the email evidence and potential further challenges to the state’s case.
Leave a comment