The High Court has dismissed an application by former deputy prime minister and National Federation Party leader Biman Chand Prasad seeking a permanent stay of criminal proceedings brought by the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC), clearing the way for the matter to proceed to trial in the Magistrates Court.
Prasad faces charges under the Political Parties Act 2013 arising from an alleged failure to declare his directorship in Platinum Hotels & Resorts PTE Limited in a 2015 statutory declaration lodged with the Registrar of Political Parties. The indictment lists one count of failing to comply with statutory disclosure requirements and an alternative count of providing false information in a statutory declaration.
In a ruling delivered today, the High Court rejected every ground advanced in Prasad’s bid to halt the prosecution. Central to Prasad’s argument was a challenge to the authority of Acting FICAC Commissioner Lavi Rokoika, whom he said was unlawfully appointed and therefore lacked the legal capacity to initiate criminal proceedings. The court held that such complaints about Rokoika’s appointment must be pursued through judicial review in the civil courts rather than by way of a criminal stay application. The judge also found Rokoika to have been a de facto public officer, and that actions she undertook in her official capacity — including authorising charges — remained valid despite disputes over the legality of her appointment.
The judge addressed another major plank of Prasad’s case — that the charges were filed nearly a decade after the alleged offence, a delay he said prejudiced his ability to defend himself. While the court acknowledged the long interval between the 2015 declaration and the laying of charges, it concluded that delay alone did not warrant the “extreme remedy” of permanently stopping criminal proceedings. The bench found Prasad had not demonstrated the delay made a fair trial impossible.
Prasad also argued he was not an “office holder” subject to the disclosure rules, that the prosecution was “foredoomed to fail,” and that FICAC had acted in bad faith by failing to interview him under caution before laying charges. The High Court dismissed these claims. It said allegations about the merits of the case should be tested at trial rather than through an interlocutory stay, and noted there is no legal requirement obliging FICAC to interview a suspect under caution prior to filing charges.
By refusing the stay, the High Court has left intact the criminal pathway for resolving the allegations against Prasad. The ruling clarifies that procedural or administrative disputes about the appointment of investigative officials cannot, in themselves, be used to derail criminal prosecutions — a point that may guide future challenges to FICAC actions. The matter will now return to the Magistrates Court where the substantive issues, including whether Prasad breached the Political Parties Act, will be determined.