The Anti-Corruption Division of the High Court has overturned a no case to answer verdict that was delivered by the Magistrate’s Court in favour of former Fiji Tertiary Scholarship and Loans Board and Fiji Commerce Commission CEO Bobby Maharaj.

Mr Maharaj was charged by the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) for abuse of office in October 2016 and Magistrate Jioji Boseiwaqa delivered a no case to answer verdict on May 11, 2020.

FICAC filed four grounds of appeal, claiming the magistrate erred in fact and law by failing to analyse the evidence objectively and that the magistrate erred in fact and law and misconceived when he decided that the exhibit No. PE17 had been discredited and unreliable to have any probative value.

FICAC further claimed the magistrate erred in fact and law by giving undue weight to the good character evidence at the no case to answer stage of the hearing.

“Unfortunately, in reaching the decision of no case to answer in this matter in favour of the accused, the learned magistrate had not commented and sufficiently discredited the evidence given in court by the prosecution witnesses and simply relied on PE17, which was only a supporting document to corroborate the evidence of PW2 and the action taken by him in furtherance of the arbitrary instructions of the accused,” Justice Dr Thushara Kumarage said in his April 28 ruling.

“In this regard, this court finds that the learned resident magistrate had failed to analyse and determine the salient evidence in the Magistrate’s Court trial and had been misled and focused his attention entirely on the document marked PE17 to reach his verdict.

“Even in relation to PE17, this court finds the determination of the learned magistrate was remarkably erroneous.

“On the above analysis, this court finds that the learned magistrate had erred in law in pronouncing a ‘no case to answer’ ruling in favour of the accused in this matter.

“Therefore, acting under Section 256 (2) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, this court sets aside the ‘no case to answer’ ruling made by the learned magistrate in this matter and direct the learned magistrate to call for the defence of the accused and make a final determination on the charge filed in Magistrate’s Court, accordingly.”