THE High Court in Lautoka has dismissed an application by lawyers Mark Anthony and Samuela Heritage for the recusal of Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions John Rabuku from the 4.15 tonnes of methamphetamine case.
Justice Aruna Aluthge presided over the matter on Thursday and Joeli Nasa represented the State.
Mr Anthony submitted that the application was made following Mr Rabuku’s admission during the pretrial conference hearing that he was related to Cathy Tuirabe and Viliame Colowaliku who were two of the nine charged in relation to the alleged importation and possession of 4.15 tonnes of methamphetamine seized between November 2023 and January 2024 in Legalega, Nadi.
Mr Anthony told the court that there was a direct conflict of interest and that Mr Rabuku admitted in an open court that the accused persons were the most misbehaved.
He also told the court that Mr Rabuku needed to be removed, and a new prosecutor not related to the accused persons, handle the case. He added that if this was addressed now, it would eliminate bias.
When asked why he filed the application at the last minute, Mr Anthony said he was only made aware when it was said during the pretrial conference hearing.
Mr Nasa told the court that the State was strongly objecting to the application because it was a delaying tactic by the defence and that Ms Tuirabe and Mr Colowaliku’s lawyers should have been in court to file this respective application and not Mr Anthony and Mr Heritage.
The court heard that a conflict of interest would only arise if he had a relationship with an accused person, however Mr Rabuku had never dined with or hung out with the accused persons who were distantly related to him.
Mr Nasa told the court that allowing such recusal applications would open the floodgates. He said that the application was a calculated move by the defense.
While delivering his ruling, Justice Aluthge said both defence lawyers were aware since September 26,2024, that Mr Rabuku was related to two of the accused persons.
Justice Aluthge said the application was made at the 11th hour.
‘If they had any issue with Mr Rabuku prosecuting the matter on the basis of conflict of interest, the proper course of action would have been to make a presentation to the DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions),” Justice Aluthge said.
The court heard that if the decision of the DPP went against them, the defence counsels could have involved the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction.
Justice Aluthge dismissed the two respective applications accordingly and did not make an order for costs.
The voir dire hearing will commence on April 22.
