Daniel Kinston Whippy, the managing director of Carpenters Fiji Limited, has entered a plea of not guilty to charges leveled against him by the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC). During a recent bail variation hearing at the Suva Magistrate’s Court, presided over by Magistrate Sufia Hamza, Whippy was charged with allegedly advising the alteration of findings in the Fire Investigation Report concerning an incident that transpired on April 8, 2018, at the Morris Hedstrom warehouse in Walu Bay, purportedly for personal gain.
In court, FICAC lawyer Sera Fatafehi outlined four conditions that Whippy must fulfill to allow him to travel. These include maintaining the existing $50,000 cash bail bond with the court registry, securing two sureties with a non-cash bond of $20,000 each, having his passport returned by the end of the day, and complying with a stop departure order pending the outcome of his visa application.
FICAC expressed concern over the potential for Whippy to abscond if granted bail, advocating for a substantial bail bond to ensure both the accused and his sureties remain committed to the judicial process. In response, Whippy’s defense attorney Stephen Stanton indicated that Whippy’s wife would accompany him; however, his son has been proposed as an alternative if necessary.
Moreover, Whippy’s second lawyer, Suruj Sharma, informed the court of an online visa application that has been submitted to the United States Embassy, noting that an in-person interview is required for processing, which could take approximately three weeks.
The case is scheduled for a follow-up hearing on November 11, at which point the stop departure order will be revisited.
This legal proceeding highlights the ongoing fight against corruption and the importance of judicial integrity. It also illustrates the complexities involved in legal cases, particularly when it comes to ensuring that individuals comply with bail conditions. As the case progresses, it will be important to see how the systems in place work to maintain fairness and justice. The transparency of this case may serve to reinforce public trust in the legal framework and encourage a dialogue about accountability in both private and public sectors.
Leave a comment