INTEGRITY is very important to me.
These were the words of acquitted former Deputy Prime Minister Manoa Kamikamica after the Suva Magistrates Court yesterday ruled in favour of a no case to answer application.
Speaking to the media, Mr Kamikamica said integrity had always been important to him and that the allegations made against him were inconsistent with his character.
“Those who know me know that integrity is very important in my life,” he said, adding that government decisions he had been involved in were made with ethics and transparency.
Mr Kamikamica said his focus would now return to his public duties, including his role as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and preparing for the upcoming election.
“There is a government to run, there are people to lead, and that’s where my focus will be.”
The former DPM also thanked his countless supporters and close family members for their support.
“I thank you all for all your support and all your prayers, and today we have restored truth and justice in this country.”
Magistrate Charles Ratakele upheld Mr Kamikamica’s no case to answer application, finding that FICAC had failed to adduce sufficient evidence on essential elements of both offences of perjury and giving false information to a public servant.
Addressing the perjury charge, Magistrate Ratakele found that the identity of Mr Kamikamica and the fact that he had been lawfully sworn during the Commission of Inquiry proceedings were not in dispute.
However, he found there was no evidence that Mr Kamikamica had made a material statement under oath.
He was charged with a count of perjury, alleging that he falsely stated under oath during the 2024 Commission of Inquiry into the appointment of former FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali that he had no knowledge of her appointment before it was publicly announced on September 5, 2024.
Mr Ratakele said the COI’s assisting counsel, Janet Mason, conceded during cross-examination that any prior knowledge of the appointment was outside the COI’s terms of reference and was not investigated.
He further noted Ms Mason accepted she never directly asked Mr Kamikamica whether he had prior knowledge of the appointment.
The magistrate said that, taken together with the evidence of the second prosecution witness, Government backbencher Kalaveti Ravu and the agreed facts, there was no evidence that the alleged statement was material to the COI proceedings.
On the element requiring proof that Mr Kamikamica knowingly made a false statement, Magistrate Ratakele found the prosecution relied heavily on diary entries belonging to Mr Ravu.
He ruled the diary entries had been admitted under a hearsay exception only to prove that the words had been written, not that the contents were true.
He also noted that Mr Ravu declined to explain or elaborate on the context of the conversations recorded in the diary.
Turning to the alternative charge of giving false information to a public servant, the magistrate again found there was no evidence capable of proving that the information allegedly given by Mr Kamikamica was false.
