The Suva Magistrates Court will deliver its voir dire ruling at 2.30pm today on questions surrounding two witness statements that were not disclosed to the defence in the trial of former deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad.
Magistrate Yogesh Prasad heard further submissions today on the defence’s concerns about statements taken from NFP’s Kamal Iyer and Dalip Kumar during an earlier FICAC investigation and whether the statements had been disclosed to the defence.
The court was told that the two statements came from an earlier FICAC investigation FEP 41 of 24 which had been closed before the current prosecution.
According to Ms Niumataiwalu’s evidence yesterday, FEP 41 of 2024 investigation relates to Prof Prasad’s declaration concerning a company called Lotus Construction. The file was closed in April, 2025.
Defence lawyer Richard Naidu submitted that three basic questions remained unanswered — whether the statements existed, whether they had been disclosed to the defence and, if they had not been disclosed, why they were not disclosed.
Mr Naidu said the prosecution’s own witness, the investigating officer Asenaca Niumataiwalu, had confirmed that the statements existed and were contained in an earlier investigation file FEP 41 of 24 but could not say whether they had been disclosed to the defence.
Mr Naidu argued that Ms Niumataiwalu had explained that disclosure to the defence was not part of her duties and that responsibility for disclosure rested with FICAC’s legal division.
Mr Naidu said this meant the second and third questions remained unanswered.
He further submitted that the issue was no longer limited to the two statements because Ms Niumataiwalu’s evidence suggested other material may have been contained in the earlier investigation file.
Mr Naidu argued that the prosecution had a duty to disclose all relevant material, including material that might assist the accused, and that late disclosure could affect the fairness of the trial.
He also requested for a transcript of the evidence given by the investigating officer to allow the defence to review the evidence and advise Professor Prasad on the next steps.
Manager Legal Joseph Work opposed the defence’s submissions, arguing that the three questions had already been answered by the investigating officer.
Mr Work said the origin and provenance of the two statements had been established and that the defence was attempting to expand a limited inquiry into wider allegations concerning the investigation and possible prosecutorial misconduct.
He submitted that any concerns about the investigation, the handling of the statements or alleged misconduct should be raised in the appropriate proceedings, including a possible stay application, rather than in the current trial.
Mr Work also argued that questions concerning how the earlier investigation was conducted could properly be put to the investigating officer during cross-examination when she gives evidence at trial.
Mr Work maintained that the current proceedings should remain confined to the three questions raised by the defence and that the trial should proceed.
The court was also told that the two statements came from an earlier FICAC investigation FEP 41 of 24 which had been closed before the current prosecution.
Mr Naidu, however, maintained that the central issue was whether the material had been disclosed to the defence, rather than what had happened to the documents internally within FICAC.
Magistrate Prasad is expected to deliver his ruling this afternoon.
