The High Court in Suva has ruled that two journalists may give evidence in a stay application brought by former Deputy Prime Ministers Biman Prasad and Manoa Kamikamica challenging criminal proceedings launched by the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC). The decision, handed down by Justice Siainiu Fa’alogo‑Bull, allows the journalists to be called after FICAC’s acting commissioner, Lavi Rokoika, objected to their testimony as irrelevant and prejudicial.
Rokoika told the court the proposed evidence would not bear on the narrow legal questions the stay application raises and said it would only serve to embarrass her. She argued the only issues for the court to consider were whether a fair trial remained possible and whether there had been an abuse of process. Rokoika warned that permitting the journalists to give evidence would create a “trial within a trial” and open collateral issues beyond the threshold matters for a stay.
The defence, however, says the journalists’ testimony is material to determining whether the de facto officer doctrine can validate actions taken by an allegedly improperly appointed official. King's Counsel Martin Daubney told the court the State had repeatedly relied on that doctrine in responding to the stay application, and the journalists’ account of an interview with Rokoika about her appointment process was necessary to test whether the doctrine should apply in these circumstances.
Justice Fa’alogo‑Bull questioned why FICAC had raised the objection at this stage, noting the point had not been taken earlier in the proceedings. After hearing submissions, the judge found the proposed witnesses to be relevant and permitted them to be called. The ruling means the court will hear factual material about Rokoika’s public statements and interactions surrounding her appointment as acting commissioner as part of the stay hearing.
The stay application is central to the defence’s broader argument that charges laid by FICAC are invalid because they were initiated by an acting commissioner whose appointment the defendants allege was unlawful. The decision to admit the journalists’ evidence narrows the legal dispute to whether the de facto officer doctrine can retrospectively validate the commissioner’s actions — a determination that could decide whether the prosecutions continue or are halted. Biman Prasad previously entered a not guilty plea in the Suva Magistrates Court to statutory disclosure‑related charges arising from separate proceedings, underscoring that related criminal matters remain active.
With the journalists now cleared to testify, the stay application hearing will proceed to examine their accounts and other evidence on the appointment process and the State’s reliance on the de facto officer principle. The outcome could have significant implications for the legal validity of FICAC’s actions and for how appointments and procedural defects are treated in criminal prosecutions going forward. More developments are expected as the hearing continues.
Leave a comment