Lawyer Janet Mason yesterday told the Suva Magistrate’s Court that former deputy prime minister Manoa Kamikamica denied having prior knowledge of Barbara Malimali’s appointment as FICAC Commissioner when he appeared before the 2024 Commission of Inquiry into the appointment.
Ms Mason, who served as counsel assisting the CoI, gave evidence before Magistrate Charles Ratakele yesterday as a witness for the State.
Mr Kamikamica is charged with one count of perjury for allegedly falsely stating under oath during the CoI that he had no knowledge of Ms Malimali’s appointment before it was made on September 5, 2024.
Alternatively, he faces one count of providing false information to a public servant for allegedly giving the same false information to the COI.
Ms Mason said the commission was established to examine the process leading to Ms Malimali’s appointment, including whether there had been any improper or unlawful involvement.
Ms Mason told the court Mr Kamikamica was questioned about allegations contained inaffidavits filed by other witnesses, including claims he had told others before the appointment that Ms Malimali would become FICAC Commissioner and had offered to raise another witness’ legal matter with Ms Malimali.
She said Mr Kamikamica admitted asking former fisheries minister Kalaveti Ravu about his court case out of sympathy but said that he had denied mentioning Ms Malimali, denied predicting her appointment and maintained he only became aware of her appointment after it was publicly announced.
Under cross-examination, defence lawyer Wylie Clarke challenged the scope of the CoI’s inquiries into the matter, suggesting it failed to directly question key Judicial Services Commission members and officials in the President’s Office about possible information leaks about Ms Malimali’s appointment.
Ms Mason accepted those specific questions were not asked but maintained the CoI focused on whether there had been improper influence rather than identifying every possible source of information.
Mr Clarke argued that a letter requesting Mr Kamikamica to file an affidavit referred only to unspecified FICAC complaints and did not ask whether he had prior knowledge of Ms Malimali’s appointment. Ms Mason disagreed, saying the letter had to be read in the context of an earlier meeting where the broader issues had been discussed and witnesses were expected to disclose relevant information.
Mr Clarke also challenged the clarity of questions put to Mr Kamikamica and other witnesses, which Ms Mason rejected.
The trial continues today.
