The Suva High Court is set to announce its decision on November 28 regarding the costs tied to the postponed trial of former Health Minister Dr. Neil Sharma, former Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama, and former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum. The trial was originally scheduled to last for three weeks starting this week, but the defense did not contest its rescheduling.
Wylie Clarke, representing Sharma, indicated that the defense is requesting $20,000 to cover costs arising from delays related to the late disclosure of key state documents. He expressed concern that these delays have created significant challenges for both the defense team and the court. Clarke emphasized the need for reassurance that all pertinent documents have been provided to avoid unforeseen issues during the trial, noting that the Director of Public Prosecutions had previously urged for a swift resolution.
On behalf of Bainimarama and Sayed-Khaiyum, Gul Fatima acknowledged that the late police disclosures have indeed placed her clients at a disadvantage. However, she stated they would not be seeking costs and support the adjournment, asking the court to consider their availability when rescheduling the trial.
Assistant DPP Laisani Tabuakuro admitted to the problems caused by the late disclosures but affirmed that the state is ready to proceed with the trial. She explained that the prosecution had recently received new materials, including call logs and bidding documents, which had not been previously known. She characterized the late disclosures as an oversight and reassured the court that all necessary documents for the trial had been submitted.
Clarke underscored the significance of maintaining a duty of care, even though the delays were understandable. Bail for Sharma, Bainimarama, and Sayed-Khaiyum has been extended, allowing them to skip the next court appearance.
The charges against the trio include allegations of abuse of office and breaches of trust concerning Ministry of Health contracts. Specifically, Bainimarama faces one count of abuse linked to improperly waiving a health tender, while Sayed-Khaiyum is charged with one count each of abuse of office and obstructing justice. Sharma has two counts each of abuse of office and breach of trust due to preferential treatment of a certain company in the tender process.
These legal proceedings are crucial as they highlight ongoing issues of governance and accountability in Fiji’s political arena. The outcomes have the potential to reinforce the integrity of public service and foster greater transparency and ethical conduct among officials. There is a hopeful expectation that positive changes may emerge from this legal scrutiny.