The State will file a formal application for a mistrial in the High Court tender case after defence lawyers raised late objections to key email evidence while a prosecution witness was testifying, court proceedings revealed on Monday.
Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Laisani Tabuakuro told Justice Usaia Ratuvuli that the defence had been in possession of the disputed documents since last year but waited until trial to challenge their admissibility. Tabuakuro said the timing of the objections had prejudiced the State’s case because former FICAC investigator Alifereti Wakanivesi had already begun giving evidence when the defence first objected to the emails.
The case involves former Health Minister Dr Neil Sharma, former Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama and former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, who are accused of failing to comply with statutory requirements for tenders under the 2010 Procurement Regulations. The State’s move for a mistrial reflects its contention that the late objections to material that had been disclosed months earlier have undermined the fairness of the ongoing hearing.
Defence counsel Wylie Clarke rejected the State’s characterisation of events, saying accused persons have a right to challenge evidence when it is presented in court. Clarke told the court the prosecution only provided its final witness list and trial bundle shortly before the trial began, arguing it was therefore unreasonable to require earlier, formal challenges. He also questioned how some of the email material came into investigators’ possession and raised concerns about whether it had been lawfully obtained.
The State additionally questioned why Clarke was permitted to raise evidentiary objections in open court without filing a formal motion supported by an affidavit. As tensions rose, Justice Ratuvuli reminded counsel to maintain decorum and manage their exchanges in accordance with court procedure.
This latest clash over emails follows earlier defence challenges to documentary evidence in the same proceeding. In early March, defence lawyers raised hearsay objections to Tender Evaluation Committee documents, arguing summaries lacked supporting original source material and could not be properly verified. The repetition of disputes over the provenance and admissibility of documentary evidence has become a focal point of the trial.
Justice Ratuvuli adjourned the matter to next Tuesday for a hearing on the State’s motion for a mistrial. If the application is formally filed, the court will have to determine whether the late objections and the contested emails have materially prejudiced the trial such that a mistrial is warranted, or whether the issues can be resolved without halting proceedings.
Leave a comment