The defence has objected to the production of a company document in the trial of former deputy prime minister Biman Prasad, arguing that the document amounts to hearsay and cannot be used to prove the truth of its contents.
The objection was raised today before Magistrate Yogesh Prasad during the first day of trial.
The document, marked as a proposed exhibit, relates to Platinum Hotels and Resorts PTE Limited and contains particulars of the company’s directors and secretary.
The prosecution called its first witness, a Ministry of Justice officer from the Registrar of Companies Office, who told the court he was an executive officer responsible for matters relating to company records.
The witness confirmed that he had access to company records and had previously provided a statement to the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC).
During his evidence, the witness identified Platinum Hotels and Resorts as a private company and gave evidence about its registration and company number.
He also told the court that, based on the records, the directors of the company at the relevant time included Prof Prasad.
Acting Manager Legal Joseph Work then sought to produce the document containing the particulars of the company’s directors.
Defence lawyer Richard Naidu objected to its production.
Mr Naidu argued that the document was not an official document created by the Registrar of Companies but was a document submitted to the Registrar’s Office by the company.
He submitted that while the witness could establish that the document was received and kept among the company records, he could not give evidence to establish the truth of the information contained in it.
Mr Naidu argued that the prosecution could not rely on the document to prove who the company’s directors were because the person who made or signed the document had not been called to give evidence and be cross-examined.
He referred the court to authorities concerning the rule against hearsay, including a recent decision in State v Sharma, and deeper authorities on hearsay evidence.
Mr Naidu argued that the document was not admissible for the purpose for which the prosecution sought to rely on it.
Mr Work opposed the objection, arguing that the document was relevant to the charge and related directly to the directorship of Platinum Hotels and Resorts.
He submitted that the document was a company record kept by the Registrar of Companies and that the witness, as an officer with custody and knowledge of the records, was competent to produce it.
Magistrate Yogesh Prasad directed the prosecution to provide an outline of its submissions on the issue by the end of today.
The defence will then have an opportunity to respond before the matter resumes tomorrow @11.30am for hearing.
The Magistrate also asked both parties to address whether the particular document formed part of the formal company registration process and whether there was a prescribed form under the Companies Act.
He said this was relevant to the arguments that would be advanced by both sides.
The witness was released after being reminded that he remained under oath and should not discuss the matter with anyone while the legal issue was being determined.
Prof Prasad faces a count of failure to comply with statutory disclosure requirements and providing false information in a statutory declaration.
FICAC alleges that between December 30, 2015, and January 31, 2016, being an officeholder of the National Federation Party, Prof Prasad failed to comply with Section 24(1B)(d) by providing to the Office of the Registrar his declaration of assets, liabilities and income as at December 31, 2015, without disclosing his directorship in Platinum Hotels & Resorts PTE Ltd thereby committing an offence contrary to Section 24(5) of the said act.
He is also alleged to have recklessly provided false information in a statutory declaration submitted to the Registrar of Political Parties Act 2013 by solemnly declaring that the particulars contained in his declaration of assets, liabilities and income as of December 31, 2015, were true and complete when the declaration omitted his directorship in Platinum Hotels & Resorts PTE Ltd.
