NO further action was taken to investigate the allegations against former health minister Dr Neil Sharma from 2012 until the file was handed over to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) in 2023.
Former Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption investigator Alifereti Wakanivesi said under oath that the file was transferred following a complaint made to the CID in 2022.
Testifying before Justice Usaia Ratuvili, he said investigations were paused in 2012 after a directive from then deputy commissioner George Langman to “put the case aside for the time being,” on the instructions of former attorney-general Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.
The State is alleging Mr Sayed Khaiyum intentionally obstructed FICAC’s investigation into Dr Sharma by directing all investigations to be shelved until further notice.
However, during cross-examination, Mr Wakanivesi agreed that there were no written directives to pause the investigation until the handover in 2023 when Commissioner Rashmi Aslam took office.
Defence lawyer Devanesh Sharma cited the Procurement Regulations under regulation 48 (4), which stated the Minister of Finance can grant a waiver if it is impractical to follow the tender process and if there is an urgent infrastructure need.
However, Mr Wakanivesi said the letters requesting the waivers did not specifically mention urgency or impracticality, but rather focused on cost savings, decentralisation of health services, and supplier-related issues.
In this case, the State alleges former prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama and Mr Sayed-Khaiyum abused their position by granting a waiver to tender CTN 66/2011 and CTN 153/ 2011 without justification.
Dr Sharma is accused of intentionally failing to comply with statutory requirements for tenders stipulated under Procurement Regulation 2010 for the Ministry of Health Tender CTN 66/2011 and CTN 153/2011 in favour of the bidder, Hospital Engineering & Consultancy Ltd, also known as Hospineer.
Mr Wakanivesi also read a letter highlighting an internal dispute within the Health Ministry. One recommendation favoured a familiar company, while another supported Hospineer.
The letter cited reasons for preferring Hospineer, including breaking a monopoly, reducing long-term costs, and advantages in local servicing.
The trial continues today.
