The High Court in Suva has dismissed an application for constitutional redress filed by former Government Member of Parliament Vijendra Prakash. In his application, Prakash contended that his right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by Section 15 of the 2013 Constitution, was infringed upon. He named the Chief Registrar as the first respondent, the Attorney General as the second respondent, and included the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption as an interested party.
Prakash argued that his rights were violated by Justice Thushara Kumarage, who ruled in October 2022 that his ability to call evidence in the case of FICAC vs. Vijendra Prakash was conditional on waiving his right to silence.
Judge Pita Bulamainavalu, in his ruling, stated that the court was compelled to strike out Prakash’s application due to abuse of process, highlighting that there were sufficient alternative remedies available under Section 44(4) of the Constitution and Order 18 Rule 18 of the High Court Rules 1988.
In February 2023, Prakash was convicted of providing false information to a public servant and securing a financial advantage of $33,679. He received a 36-month prison sentence, with 28 months to be served and eight months suspended for five years. Earlier this year, the Court of Appeal also dismissed his appeal, presided over by Justice Isikeli Mataitoga. Furthermore, Prakash has been ordered to pay $2,000 to the Attorney General’s Office.
This case highlights the ongoing issues of legal accountability and the complex nature of the judicial process in Fiji. While Prakash may seek further legal recourse, the court’s decisions suggest a commitment to upholding the rule of law. Looking ahead, it is essential for all parties involved to navigate the legal system with transparency and integrity, ensuring justice is served while upholding constitutional rights.
Summary: The High Court in Suva has dismissed Vijendra Prakash’s application for constitutional redress, asserting that he did not demonstrate a violation of his right to a fair trial. Following his conviction for providing false information to a public servant, Prakash has faced significant legal challenges, culminating in a prison sentence and a financial penalty.
Leave a comment