Former deputy prime ministers Manoa Kamikamica and Professor Biman Prasad have attacked Acting Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption Lavi Rokoika’s conduct, alleging bias, conflict of interest, delay and bad faith, arguing in the High Court yesterday that their prosecutions should be permanently stayed.
In Mr Kamikamica’s case, Martin Daubney KC argued that the perjury and false information charges brought against the former arose directly from his evidence before the Commission of Inquiry (COI), which contradicted the evidence of former fisheries minister Kalaveti Ravu. He said that Ms Rokoika was Mr Ravu’s lawyer at the time, and now that she was prosecuting Mr Kamikamica, there was an appearance of bias.
Mr Daubney said this undermined public confidence in the court system, noting that Ms Rokoika had not filed an affidavit to rebut Mr Kamikamica’s allegations about her conflict of interest. He further argued there was “not a shred” of evidence to support the charges and that continuing the Magistrate’s Court proceedings would be an abuse of process.
In response, FICAC prosecutor Josann Pene said the claims of bias were generalised and unsupported by evidence. She argued that previous professional relationships did not establish bias without proof of real prejudice, adding that evidential issues should be tested at trial.
Moving to Prof Prasad’s case, Mr Daubney argued there was no evidence of any complaint giving rise to the charge, despite the prosecution stating one was received in 2024. Prof Prasad faces one count of failing to comply with statutory disclosure requirements in 2015 and another of providing false information in a statutory declaration.
Mr Daubney submitted that the delay of nearly a decade was prejudicial as Prof Prasad had no warning of the charge which would allow him to preserve evidence.
Mr Daubney said the case against Prof Prasad was also “doomed to fail” because he did not fall within the definition of an “office holder” under the Political Parties Act as the charge required. He also criticised FICAC for charging him without conducting a caution interview.
In reply, prosecutor Joseph Work said the complaint to FICAC “did not go to the elements of the charge” and that full disclosure had been provided to Prof Prasad. He said the matter was still at an early stage and a fair trial remained possible.
Ms Rokoika added there was no legal requirement to conduct a caution interview before charging, and its absence did not render the proceedings unfair. She said the issue of whether Prof Prasad was an “office holder” should be determined at trial and that he had not met the high threshold required for a permanent stay.
Justice Siainiu Fa’alogo Bull will deliver her decision on Mr Kamikamica’s application on April 24, followed by Prof Prasad’s on May 1.
