Former DPM Biman Prasad and lawyer Richard Naidu outside court this morning

Tensions have risen in the Suva Magistrates Court over the disclosure of evidence in the case against former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad.

The defence says a FICAC hearing has raised serious questions over whether all relevant evidence was disclosed before the trial.

Defence lawyer Richard Naidu says FICAC’s own investigating officer confirmed that witness statements from an earlier investigation exist.

But the officer could not confirm whether those statements were disclosed to the defence or explain why they were not disclosed.

The defence had asked FICAC three questions whether it held the statements, whether they had been disclosed to the defence, and if not, why.

Naidu says only the first question was answered.

He says the investigating officer confirmed that statements had been taken from several witnesses and that material from an earlier investigation had been used.

However, she told the court that disclosure to the defence was not part of her responsibility.

This prompted a heated exchange, with Naidu saying the defence should not be concerned with how disclosure is handled internally within FICAC.

He argued that someone must take responsibility for answering whether the documents were disclosed and, if not, why.

FICAC disagreed, telling the court the three questions had been answered through the evidence of the investigating officer.

It also objected to the defence suggesting that the prosecutor may have failed in his duty, saying the defence was making assumptions that were not supported by the evidence.

The Magistrate intervened and questioned whether the defence was effectively alleging that the prosecutor had failed to carry out his disclosure duties.

Naidu maintained that the questions remained unanswered.

He then suggested that FICAC should produce the person who can answer the outstanding questions whether the documents were disclosed to the defence and, if not, why.

The defence says this is no longer simply about two witness statements, as the evidence has raised questions about what other material may be contained in the earlier investigation file.

Naidu argues that receiving the documents now may not fully address the issue, because the defence says it may have prepared its case differently if the material had been disclosed earlier.

FICAC maintains that issues concerning the investigation or any alleged misconduct should be dealt with through the appropriate proceedings, while the current trial should continue.

Professor Prasad is charged with failing to comply with statutory disclosure requirements, allegedly by failing to disclose his directorship in Platinum Hotels and Resorts PTE Limited in his declaration of assets, liabilities and income as at 31 December 2015.

He is also charged with allegedly providing false information in a statutory declaration by declaring that his disclosure was true and complete despite the alleged omission.

The matter will be called again later this afternoon.