Lawyers representing former Prime Minister Josaia Bainimarama and former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum have submitted a notice of motion challenging the charges brought against them. The two are facing a single count of abuse of office and appeared before Magistrate Sufia Hamza at the Suva Magistrate’s Court yesterday.
Former Health Minister Neil Sharma is also involved in this case but was not present at the last hearing.
In their motion, the defense, acting as applicants, is requesting several declarations and orders, including:
– A declaration that their human rights have been violated.
– A declaration and order that charges 5, 6, and 7 be rendered null and void, citing that they were approved by an illegally appointed former acting Director of Public Prosecutions.
– An order stating that Bainimarama and Sayed-Khaiyum were not employed in the public or civil service.
– An order asserting that count 7 was improperly filed against Sayed-Khaiyum and is outdated.
– A request for the charges to be dismissed.
Additionally, they are seeking costs associated with the court proceedings.
During the hearing, State Prosecutor Nancy Tikoisuva explained that Section 290 of the Criminal Procedure Act permits the court to address the matter, though the focus of the defense’s requests relates to constitutional issues. Defense attorney Devanesh Sharma argued that under section 100 subsection 7 of the 2013 Constitution, the Magistrate Court has the authority to hear this case. Magistrate Hamza noted that neither party had submitted these points in writing.
The court has set a deadline of January 8 for both parties to submit written arguments before the next hearing scheduled for January 23, 2025.
Regarding Neil Sharma’s request for specific documents from the State, Ms. Tikoisuva confirmed that all pertinent documents had been submitted to the court. She also indicated that the remaining required documents would be given to Sharma’s legal team by the end of the week. Sharma’s lawyer, Krisheel Cheng, mentioned that they have been requesting this list since September 9.
The requested list includes:
– The State’s list of witnesses,
– Information on whether the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Police have filed additional evidence beyond what has already been submitted,
– The FICAC file related to the case.
Ms. Tikoisuva informed the court that they would disclose their list of witnesses only after a hearing date is confirmed. Before adjourning, Mr. Sharma requested that all individuals listed in affidavits be present for cross-examination at the next sitting, where all accused must attend.