Court

Drug immunity deal comes with risks

August 5, 2026 1:05 pm

[Photo: BOSE VAVATAGA]

Immunity granted to people linked to Fiji’s biggest cocaine seizure can be revoked, with offenders facing fresh charges if they break strict conditions.

This, according to Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions John Rabuku.

Rabuku says those given immunity in the Vatia drug case are not cleared of wrongdoing and must follow conditions set by prosecutors.

“You’re granted immunity on these grounds. One, that you’ll be truthful to the police when you give your statement. Two, that every time the police contacts you to come to the police station to clear up something, you will come Three, that you will behave yourself during this immunity period.”

Article continues after advertisement

Rabuku says if the conditions are breached, immunity can be withdrawn and charges can be brought back because investigators already have evidence against them.

He says some individuals have been restricted from travelling overseas to ensure they remain available while the case continues.

Rabuku said immunity was being used to help prosecutors secure evidence against those believed to have had bigger roles in the cocaine operation.

He says only two people had their charges withdrawn without conditional immunity.

They are carrier driver Munandra and another man, Vishwa.

Rabuku says investigators could not prove the two knowingly possessed the cocaine.

He says possession is not based only on being near or handling the drugs. Prosecutors must prove a person knew about the drugs and intended to possess them.

Rabuku said Vishwa was on the vessel that collected the cocaine but only became aware of the drugs after they were loaded.

“When we assessed this evidence, we knew that he had gone on the local vessel to collect the cocaine and that he had no knowledge at all that it was cocaine until it was loaded. And then when the cocaine came, it came straight to the police. Right? And so we were of the view that, endorsed by the boss, that he did not have the requisite mental element to unlawfully possess. And neither was he reckless.”

The case remains before the High Court in Ba, with prosecutors continuing their case against those facing trial.