Justice Usaia Ratuvili will deliver his ruling on the State’s application for a mistrial in the High Court in Suva on Friday, bringing the latest development in the high-profile case involving former prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama, former attorney-general Aiyaz Sayed‑Khaiyum and former health minister Dr Neil Sharma.
The application was filed by Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Laisani Tabuakuro, who told the court the State was seeking a mistrial on the basis of prosecutorial error and the conduct of Dr Sharma’s lead counsel, Wylie Clarke. Ms Tabuakuro argued that Mr Clarke — who is also president of the Fiji Law Society — repeatedly raised objections to the tendering of documents during the trial that she says should have been dealt with prior to the hearing. The prosecution also submitted that the accused have not entered a plea to the amended information.
Defence lawyers Wylie Clarke and Devanesh Sharma opposed the application, telling the court that disputes about evidence and the admissibility of documents do not ordinarily amount to grounds for a mistrial. The defence argued such orders are exceptional and should only be made where the trial process has been so tainted that a fair determination of guilt or innocence is impossible. Both counsel urged the judge to allow the trial to continue.
The three accused face charges of abuse of office, obstruction of justice and breach of trust arising from alleged transactions that date back to 2011. The matter has drawn sustained public attention and multiple court hearings as the trial addresses complex evidential and procedural issues.
Justice Ratuvili reserved judgment after hearing legal submissions on the application. A ruling either granting a mistrial or refusing the application will determine whether the present trial can proceed to its conclusion on the current record, or whether the proceedings will be halted and the State required to consider alternative steps. The court did not indicate a timeframe for any further hearings pending Friday’s written or oral decision.
The State’s mistrial bid is the latest procedural flashpoint in a cluster of politically sensitive cases that have featured detailed legal argument over evidence and process. With the ruling due this week, parties and observers are now awaiting clarification from the High Court on whether the trial will continue uninterrupted or be subject to fresh proceedings.
Leave a comment