Lawyer Wylie Clarke has notified the prosecution of his intention to challenge the admissibility of specific evidence in the ongoing trial involving former prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama, former attorney-general Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, and former health minister Neil Sharma. Clarke, representing Dr. Sharma, argued that essential documents, including a tender evaluation committee report, have not been disclosed, raising concerns over the integrity of the evidence presented.
Dr. Sharma and his co-accused are facing serious charges, including abuse of office, obstruction of justice, and breach of trust related to alleged transactions that took place in 2011. These charges reflect significant concerns regarding the conduct of public officials and the ethical standards required in government roles.
In a related development, Devanesh Sharma, the attorney representing Mr. Bainimarama and Mr. Sayed-Khaiyum, requested that the trial proceedings be expedited by limiting the witness list. He claimed that only ten of the witnesses listed are pertinent to the case, while others consist predominantly of police officers. This request underscores a push for a more efficient legal process in light of the significant resources required for lengthy trials.
Additionally, Sharma raised an issue concerning a social media comment made by Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions John Rabuku, which he argued was inappropriate while the matter is still pending trial. A screenshot of the contentious post was submitted to senior State lawyer Pooja Mishra, with hopes that public comments on active court cases will be avoided in the future.
Presiding Judge Justice Usaia Ratuvili has called for senior prosecutors to exercise caution and refrain from making public comments regarding cases currently before the court. He has also permitted a further amendment to the information presented, particularly regarding the dates relevant to the charges. Justice Ratuvili ruled that Assistant DPP Laisani Tabuakuro’s affidavit could be admitted as long as its content remained administrative.
The trial is set to resume on March 2, as the legal processes evolve and the court continues its examination of the evidence and procedural concerns raised by the defense. This case serves as an important reflection of accountability within public office and the ongoing commitment to maintaining the rule of law.