Former deputy prime minister Professor Biman Prasad’s trial took a further turn today after the defence objected to the admission of a 2014 document produced by the Fiji Elections Office.
The matter was heard before Magistrate Yogesh Prasad, with Professor Prasad represented by lawyer Richard Naidu. FICAC Manager Legal Joseph Work appeared for the prosecution.
The objection arose during the evidence of the third prosecution witness FEO’s manager legal Mesake Dawai, who was being questioned about correspondence and records kept by the Elections Office.
Mr Naidu questioned whether the document being relied on was the original or a colour copy, arguing that the original document should be produced under the best evidence rule.
Mr Work submitted that the document came from the custodian of the Elections Office records and bore the office’s stamp.
It also relied on Supreme Court authority concerning the admissibility of copies of documents.
However, the court raised questions about the document’s original, including whether it still existed, where it was kept and who had received the document in 2014.
The court noted Mr Dawai currently giving evidence had only started working at the Elections Office in 2015 and therefore could not personally speak to the receipt of the document in 2014.
The court said the issue needed to be clarified before the document could be properly dealt with, including whether the original was held by the Elections Office.
The prosecution was directed to make further inquiries with the relevant office and determine whether the original document was available.
If the original could not be produced, the court indicated that evidence would be required to establish the circumstances surrounding the document and its copy via another voir dire hearing.
Mr Dawai was released and is to be recalled when the issue is resolved. Prof Prasad faces a count of failure to comply with statutory disclosure requirements, contrary to section 24(5) of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013, read with section 24(1B) (d).
He is also charged with providing false information in a statutory declaration Contrary to section 27(1) (c) of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013.
