Former prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama and suspended Police Commissioner Sitiveni Qiliho have been convicted of charges related to interfering with police investigations into the mismanagement of funds by the University of the South Pacific Council in 2019.
This, after Acting Chief Justice Salesi Temo overturned the judgment of magistrate Seini Puamau, who acquitted the duo of charges of abuse of office.
Justice Temo ordered the case be sent back to magistrate Puamau on March 18 for her to abide by the High Court decision and pronounce Bainimarama and Qiliho guilty of all counts of abuse of office and convict them accordingly.
He also called for mitigation submissions be carried out on March 20 and March 21 and for the pair to be sentenced on March 28.
In a 34-page judgement, Justice Temo highlighted several errors in law made by Ms Puamau.
“In my view, the learned magistrate erred in fact and law in failing to put proper weight and value on the State’s witnesses evidence as opposed to the second respondent (Qiliho)’s evidence,” said Justice Temo.
“I accept the evidence of all (25) of the State’s witnesses as recorded in the court record.
“I find them credible. “I don’t accept the second respondent’s evidence that he did not know the existence of (the USP Council investigations).”
Justice Temo said the former PM’s response to then Acting Police Commissioner Rusiate Tudravu that he had informed ‘Tuks’ not to touch the USP investigations also suggested that the pair had discussed details of the inquiry.
“It was obvious that when you put the above evidence together and consider them within the surrounding circumstances, a reasonable inference drawn from there was that the first respondent (Bainimarama) as the Prime Minister of Fiji was directing the second respondent, the Commissioner of Police to stop investigating the allegations (on the USP Council).”
Bainimarama was charged with one count of attempt to pervert the course of justice and Qiliho was charged with one count of abuse of office.
Ms Puamau found them not guilty and acquitted the two on October 12, 2023.
The State then filed eight grounds of appeal which mainly centred on the opinion that the magistrate erred in law and in fact on several evidentiary and procedural issues, thereby resulting in an unfair trial and an erroneous verdict.
