The prosecution has been ordered to disclose two previously undisclosed witness statements to the defence in the trial of former deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad.
The ruling was delivered today by Magistrate Yogesh Prasad in the Suva Magistrates Court following oral submissions by the prosecution and defence on September 10 and 11.
The issue concerned two statements taken from former NFP party officials Kamal Iyer and Dalip Kumar during an earlier FICAC investigation.
The court heard that an earlier investigation, FICAC file FEP 41 of 2024, had been closed before another investigation, FEP 89 of 2025, was opened in relation to the allegations currently before the court.
During the earlier investigation, several witness statements were recorded, including statements from Mr Iyer and Mr Kumar.
The court was told the two statements were not disclosed to the defence because investigators considered them irrelevant to the present charges.
However, the magistrate noted that the statements existed and could potentially assist the defence.
He said the prosecution had a continuing duty to disclose material information relating to the charges before trial, including evidence it intended to rely on and unused material that could assist the accused in preparing his defence.
The magistrate said the issue before the court was whether the statements were relevant, whether they had been disclosed, why they had not been disclosed and whether there was a duty on the prosecution to disclose them.
He accepted the evidence that the decision not to use the statements was based on an assessment of their relevance by the investigator.
However, the magistrate said responsibility for disclosure rested with the prosecution and not solely with investigators.
He said with evidence now before the court confirming the existence of the two statements, and given that they could assist the defence, they should be disclosed to the defence as soon as practicable.
The magistrate also emphasised the importance of protecting the integrity of the court process and ensuring disputes over disclosure were properly addressed by the court.
Defence lawyer Richard Naidu then sought 15 minutes to take instructions following the ruling.
