The High Court in Suva is scheduled to hear the strike-out application submitted by Neelraj Sharma, the former Director of Public Prosecutions. This application relates to a significant compensation claim of $800,244 million brought forth by Veronica Malani against 11 individuals involved in the investigation of a bombing case from 1987 that resurfaced in 2020.
During a court session presided over by Justice Usaia Ratuvili on Wednesday, all involved lawyers were present. Sharma’s attorney, Ronal Singh, declared that they were ready to proceed with the hearing date. However, Veronica Malani was granted additional time to ensure her lawyer, Sitiveni Raikanikoda, could attend the court proceedings.
The hearing has been set for December 11, where all parties are expected to submit their statements prior to the hearing. Furthermore, Raikanikoda raised concerns regarding the defense’s adherence to civil procedural rules. He pointed out that the defense lawyers had bypassed the proper process by not filing a statement of defense after receiving the writ of summons, instead opting to file a strike-out application.
Raikanikoda also questioned the legal representation for former acting Police Commissioner Rusiate Tudravu and retired Assistant Police Commissioner Biu Matavou, identified as the fifth and sixth defendants in this case. He noted their status as retired government officials but mentioned that they were being represented by the Office of the Attorney-General. He asked the court whether these retired officials should also have a separate legal representative and file submissions, given the serious nature of the claims against them, to which Justice Ratuvili responded that the trial would proceed regardless of their representation.
This case highlights critical issues surrounding legal procedures and the complexities involved in high-profile cases. As the judicial process unfolds, it will be important to uphold the principles of justice and fairness, ensuring that all parties have a fair opportunity to present their case and that due process is respected.
In summary, while this case brings attention to procedural concerns, it also underscores the court’s commitment to continuing with the judicial process, promoting accountability and transparency in the legal system. Hopefully, this will lead to a just resolution for all parties involved.
Leave a comment