The Suva Magistrates Court has determined that former Member of Parliament Simione Rokomalo Rasova must face charges related to allegations of providing false information and unlawfully acquiring over $21,000 in parliamentary allowances. Rasova is facing one count of giving false information to a public servant and another count of obtaining a financial advantage.
The accusations stem from an incident on February 14, 2019, when it is claimed Rasova misled the then Acting Secretary-General to Parliament, Viniana Namosimalua, by asserting that Nabouwalu Village, Ono in Kadavu was his permanent residence. The prosecution contends that Rasova was aware this information was false and that it resulted in the approval of allowance claims for which he was ineligible.
The second charge alleges that between July 1, 2019, and April 30, 2020, Rasova received a total of $21,350 in subsistence and travel allowances by falsely claiming he resided more than 30 kilometers from Parliament. The prosecution asserts that he actually lived on Waimanu Road in Suva, which is less than 30 kilometers away.
Rasova entered a not guilty plea for both charges. The trial, which concluded in April 2024, involved a seven-day hearing. At its conclusion, the defense argued for a no case to answer submission, stating the prosecution had not established a sufficient prima facie case. However, this was contested by the State counsel, who argued that the evidence presented effectively addressed all elements of the charges.
In her ruling, Magistrate Pulekeria Low clarified the legal standard for a no case to answer submission, affirming that the court must assess whether there exists enough evidence that could lead a reasonable tribunal to convict, considering the evidence at its strongest. After evaluating the presented evidence, Magistrate Low concluded that there was ample relevant and admissible evidence implicating Rasova in all aspects of the charges.
Rasova has been granted 28 days to appeal the court’s decision, giving him a window to challenge the ruling if he chooses to do so. This case underscores the importance of accountability within public office and the legal implications of misrepresentation in financial matters related to parliamentary duties.