A LAWYER yesterday demanded that FICAC disclose to him a document relating to his client, saying it had ignored three letters requesting disclosure.
Richard Naidu, appearing with Professor Biman Prasad in the Suva Magistrate’s Court, said they were surprised to learn during the hearing of their permanent stay application at the High Court last month that FICAC had received a complaint against his client, but had not included it in its disclosure materials in the lower court.
Prof Prasad is charged with a count of failure to comply with statutory disclosure requirements, which allegedly occurred in 2015. He is also charged with providing false information in a statutory declaration, by allegedly submitting a declaration that omitted his directorship.
Mr Naidu said the defence first learned that a complaint existed when acting FICAC Commissioner, Lavi Rokoika referred to it during the stay application hearing in the high court. He said when it was demanded by the defence, Ms Rokoika then offered to provide the complaint.
Mr Naidu told Magistrate Yogesh Prasad that he had since written to FICAC three times requesting disclosure of the complaint but had received no response. He noted that FICAC had twice told the magistrate’s court that all documents relevant to the case had already been disclosed.
Magistrate Prasad told FICAC lawyers that it was their constitutional duty to disclose to the defence all relevant documents they would be relying on at trial. But Mr Naidu insisted that he wanted an unconditional order to disclose the complaint.
“I want it disclosed to ensure that we have all the documents necessary for our defence,” Mr Naidu said.
“Whether FICAC relies on it or not, our defence is broader than just the trial.”
Mr Naidu said he did not want FICAC to later argue that the complaint need not be disclosed because FICAC did not intend to rely on it. He maintained that disclosure was necessary for all aspects of the defence, not just the trial.
Magistrate Prasad directed FICAC to disclose, within three days, all relevant materials, whether the prosecution intended to rely on it or not.
FICAC prosecutor Arieta Vaganalau said she was unaware of the complaint disclosure but assured the court this would be looked into.
Mr Prasad and the lower court was awaiting Justice Siainiu Fa’alogo Bull’s ruling on Prof Prasad’s application for a permanent stay of his criminal charges, which is due to be delivered on May 1.
The case has been adjourned to May 21.
