The Suva High Court is scheduled to deliver its ruling on November 28 regarding costs associated with the postponement of the trial involving former Health Minister Dr. Neil Sharma, former Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama, and former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum. The defense team did not oppose the trial’s rescheduling, which was initially set to last for three weeks commencing this week.
Wylie Clarke, representing Sharma, shared that the defense is seeking $20,000 in costs due to delays caused by the late disclosure of state documents. He emphasized that these delays have placed both the defense and the court in a challenging situation. Clarke pointed out that the Director of Public Prosecutions had advocated for an expedited trial and that the defense needs assurance that all relevant documents have been disclosed to prevent any unexpected developments during the trial.
Gul Fatima, representing Bainimarama and Sayed-Khaiyum, stated that while late police disclosures have put the defense at a disadvantage, her clients do not seek costs and do not oppose the adjournment. She requested that the court take their schedules into account when setting a new trial date.
Assistant DPP Laisani Tabuakuro acknowledged the issue of late disclosures but insisted that the state is prepared for trial, explaining that new materials, including call records and bidding documents, were previously unknown to the prosecution. She described the late disclosures as an oversight and confirmed that all essential documents for the trial have been included in the previous submissions.
Clarke reiterated the importance of maintaining a duty of care, regardless of the understandable nature of the delays. Meanwhile, bail for Sharma, Bainimarama, and Sayed-Khaiyum has been extended, and they have been excused from attending the next court appearance.
The charges against the trio involve alleged abuses of office and breaches of trust related to Ministry of Health tenders. Specifically, Bainimarama faces one count of abuse of office linked to waiving a health tender without lawful justification, while Sayed-Khaiyum is charged with one count of abuse of office and one count of obstructing justice. Sharma faces two counts each for abuse of office and breach of trust due to favoritism towards a specific company during the tender process.
These proceedings reflect ongoing concerns about governance and accountability within Fiji’s political landscape. As they develop, there is hope that the legal system will uphold the integrity of public service and result in enhanced transparency and ethical conduct among public officials.