Lawyer Wylie Clarke has formally informed the prosecution of his intent to contest the admissibility of specific evidence in the trial of former Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama, former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, and former Health Minister Neil Sharma. Representing Dr. Sharma, Clarke has expressed serious concerns about the lack of disclosure of crucial documents, such as a tender evaluation committee report, which raises questions about the integrity of the evidence being presented in court.
Dr. Sharma and his co-defendants are facing severe allegations, including abuse of office, obstruction of justice, and breach of trust related to actions taken in 2011. These accusations highlight critical issues regarding the behavior of public officials and the ethical benchmarks expected in governmental positions.
In another notable development, Devanesh Sharma, the attorney for Mr. Bainimarama and Mr. Sayed-Khaiyum, has filed a request to expedite the trial proceedings by reducing the witness list. He contends that only ten out of the numerous witnesses slated for the trial are relevant, citing that many are police officers, thus stressing the necessity for a more streamlined and efficient legal process amidst the demands of lengthy trials.
Additionally, Sharma addressed a potential issue stemming from a social media comment made by Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions John Rabuku, which he contended was inappropriate given the ongoing trial. He has provided a screenshot of the contentious post to senior State lawyer Pooja Mishra, seeking assurances that public commentary on active court cases will be curtailed in the future.
Justice Usaia Ratuvili, overseeing the trial, has urged senior prosecutors to exercise restraint in making public comments about cases under judicial consideration. He has also agreed to allow amendments to the information presented concerning the relevant dates of the charges. Justice Ratuvili ruled that the affidavit of Assistant DPP Laisani Tabuakuro could be used, provided its content remains administrative in nature.
The trial is scheduled to continue on March 2, as the court diligently navigates the complexities of the evidence and procedural issues raised by the defense. This case not only reflects the critical need for accountability among public officials but also reinforces the ongoing commitment to uphold the rule of law in society.