Mollyn Nakabea 
[Photo: Mollyn Nakabea]
The defence has challenged the sufficiency of evidence presented by the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption against former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad.
The Suva Magistrates Court will hear further no-case-to-answer submissions next Wednesday.
Defence counsel Richard Naidu argued that FICAC had failed to prove Professor Prasad was an officeholder under the Political Parties Act.
Naidu submitted that the party’s recognised officeholders were limited to the president, vice-president, general secretary, treasurer and registered officer.
He also challenged the statutory declaration at the centre of the charge, arguing that it did not meet the requirements of the Act.
Naidu further argued that FICAC had not presented sufficient evidence to establish that Professor Prasad was a director of Platinum Hotels and Resorts Pte Limited or prove his connection to the company.
FICAC countered that the offence was one of strict liability and that the documents should be considered together rather than in isolation.
It argued that the documents collectively showed Professor Prasad had been appointed party leader at the relevant time.
The defence maintained that agreeing to admit documents as evidence did not mean accepting the truth of the facts contained in them.
Defence counsel Ashish Nand also referred to Section 24(5) of the Political Parties Act, arguing that an offence could only be treated as one of strict liability if the law
expressly provided for it.
The court will hear further submissions on the agreed facts and documents, as well as whether the charge constitutes an offence of strict liability on October 21.
