The High Court in Suva has dismissed an application for Constitutional redress filed by former Member of Parliament Vijendra Prakash. Prakash contended that his rights to a fair trial, as outlined in Section 15 of the 2013 Constitution, were infringed upon. He named the Chief Registrar as the first respondent, the Attorney General as the second, and included the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption as an interested party in his claim.
Prakash’s concerns were linked to a ruling made by Justice Thushara Kumarage in October 2022, which imposed conditions on his right to present evidence during the trial concerning the FICAC vs. Vijendra Prakash case, effectively requiring him to waive his right to remain silent.
However, Justice Pita Bulamainavalu, upon reviewing the application, determined that it was an abuse of process and emphasized that there were sufficient alternative remedies available under Section 44(4) of the Constitution and Order 18 Rule 18 of the High Court Rules of 1988.
Prakash was previously convicted in February 2023 for providing false information to a public servant and obtaining a financial advantage of $33,679. His sentencing included 36 months in prison, with 28 months to be served and eight months suspended for five years. Earlier this year, his appeal was rejected by Justice Isikeli Mataitoga in the Court of Appeal. Additionally, he has been ordered to pay a penalty of $2,000 to the Attorney General’s Office.
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s emphasis on upholding legal processes and the importance of alternative remedies within the legal framework. It illustrates a robust legal system where proper procedures are followed, protecting the integrity of justice in complex cases.
In summary, Vijendra Prakash’s attempt to seek Constitutional redress was rejected by the High Court, emphasizing the legal processes in place and the accessible avenues for remedy within the country’s legal system.
As a positive takeaway, this decision affirms the courts’ commitment to maintaining a structured legal framework, ensuring that individuals are held accountable while preserving the integrity of judicial proceedings.
Leave a comment