A legal dispute over the admission of documents in the high‑profile medical tender trial was resolved at the Suva High Court today after prosecutors secured a directive limiting what a state witness may say about material seized during an earlier investigation. Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Laisani Tabuakuro asked the court to rule on defence objections that had repeatedly interrupted testimony by a former FICAC investigator.
The disagreement arose while former FICAC investigator Alifereti Waqanivesi was giving evidence about documents seized in 2012. Tabuakuro told the court the prosecution had called Waqanivesi only to establish that certain documents existed and had been seized, not to have him speak to the substance of those documents. She said the State intended to call witnesses with direct knowledge of the documents’ creation or receipt at a later stage if it relied on their contents.
Defence counsel for Dr. Neil Sharma, Wylie Clarke, told the court his client would not object to the documents being admitted solely to prove they were in existence and had been seized. Clarke warned, however, that the defence would object if the State sought to use the investigator’s evidence to prove what the documents contained, arguing that would amount to hearsay. Devanesh Sharma, representing former prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama and former attorney‑general Aiyaz Sayed‑Khaiyum, also pointed out there was no agreed bundle of documents before the court, meaning each item would need to be formally admitted one by one.
Presiding Judge Usaia Ratuvili accepted the prosecution’s submissions in part and ruled that Waqanivesi could testify about the fact of the seizure and the existence of the documents, but he could not speak to their contents. The judge emphasised that if the State wished to rely on what the documents said, it must call their authors or recipients — witnesses who could give direct evidence about the documents’ creation or meaning.
Justice Ratuvili also declined a defence request to adjourn proceedings, saying the court would assess the weight to be attached to the documents and related testimony once all relevant witnesses had been heard. The ruling was aimed at keeping the trial moving while preserving defendants’ rights to challenge hearsay evidence.
The ruling impacts the ongoing prosecution of Bainimarama, Sayed‑Khaiyum and Dr. Neil Sharma over allegations linked to a medical tender, a matter that has attracted significant public attention. The trial, which has seen multiple days of witness testimony and legal argument, continues at the Suva High Court with the prosecution signalling it will call additional witnesses who can speak directly to the documents if it intends to deploy their contents against the accused.
Leave a comment