[Photo: FILE]

Former Health Minister’s Lawyer, Wylie Clarke, in the ongoing trial involving former senior government figures, termed prosecution witness Solomoni Suguta, of being evasive while giving evidence about the evaluation of medical equipment tenders 66 and 153 of 2011.

The case involves former health minister Neil Sharma, former Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama, and former attorney-general Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, and centres on the procurement of medical equipment under health tenders issued in 2011.

During cross-examination, the Former Procurement Officer at the Fiji Pharmaceutical Biomedical Services was pressed on his recollection of a March 2011 evaluation committee meeting related to rural laboratory equipment.

Senior Defence lawyer Clarke questioned how Suguta could clearly recall technical details of the tender process but initially claimed to have no memory of being part of that earlier meeting.

The prosecution witness rejected the allegation, explaining that he had attended many meetings during his time in the public service and could not immediately recall specific details without being shown documentation.

He maintained that he would remember events if provided with evidence to refresh his memory.

The exchange drew further attention when counsel highlighted what he described as inconsistencies in the witness’s testimony, particularly his ability to recall detailed aspects of the tender evaluation process while struggling to remember his participation in key meetings.

Clarke argued that such gaps raised concerns about the reliability of the witness’s evidence, especially given the importance of the evaluation committee’s role in assessing bids for medical equipment.

The witness, however, stood by his evidence, reiterating that the passage of time, more than a decade since the events in question, affected his ability to recall specific meetings without prompting.

The court also heard that the witness had been involved in multiple technical and procurement-related discussions during that period.

The defense counsels was examining the processes and decisions surrounding the awarding of contracts for medical equipment, with particular focus on how evaluations were conducted and whether proper procedures were followed.

The trial will recommence on the 15th of this month.