Former Deputy Prime Minister and National Federation Party leader Biman Chand Prasad[Photo: FILE]

The High Court has dismissed an application by former Deputy Prime Minister and National Federation Party leader Biman Chand Prasad seeking a permanent stay of criminal proceedings brought against him by the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption.

Prasad faces charges under the Political Parties Act 2013 relating to the alleged failure to declare his directorship in Platinum Hotels & Resorts PTE Limited in his 2015 statutory declaration submitted to the Registrar of Political Parties.

The charges include one count of failure to comply with statutory disclosure requirements and an alternative count of providing false information in a statutory declaration.

In a ruling delivered today, the High Court rejected all grounds raised in Prasad’s application for a permanent stay of proceedings in the Magistrates Court.

Prasad had argued that Acting FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali’s successor, Lavi Rokoika, was unlawfully appointed and therefore lacked the legal authority to initiate charges.

He also argued that the nearly 10-year delay in bringing the charges was prejudicial, that he was not an “office holder” under the law, and that FICAC acted improperly by failing to interview him under caution before filing charges.

The Court ruled that challenges to the legality of Rokoika’s appointment should be pursued through judicial review proceedings in the civil courts rather than through a criminal stay application.

The judge also found that Rokoika acted as a de facto public officer and that actions undertaken in her official capacity, including authorising charges, remained valid regardless of disputes over the legality of her appointment.

On the issue of delay, the Court acknowledged the charges were filed almost a decade after the alleged offence but said delay alone was insufficient to justify permanently halting criminal proceedings.

The ruling stated that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the delay made a fair trial impossible.

The Court also rejected arguments that the charges were “foredoomed to fail,” saying issues relating to the merits of the case should be determined during trial proceedings rather than in a stay application.

The allegation that FICAC acted in bad faith by not interviewing Prasad under caution was also dismissed, with the Court stating there was no legal requirement mandating such an interview before charges are laid.

The High Court concluded that none of the grounds advanced by Prasad justified the “extreme remedy” of permanently staying the proceedings.

The application was dismissed, meaning the criminal case against Prasad will continue in the Magistrates Court.