Magistrate Yogesh Prasad will deliver his ruling on 12th November on former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad’s no-case-to-answer application.
Professor Prasad is charged by FICAC with two offences relating to the alleged non-disclosure of his directorship in Platinum Hotels & Resorts PTE Limited in his 2015 statutory declaration as an office holder of the National Federation Party.
FICAC alleges that on or about 30th December 2015, Professor Prasad failed to declare the directorship in his declaration of assets, liabilities and income submitted to the Registrar of Political Parties, allegedly breaching the Political Parties Act.
He is also charged with providing false information in a statutory declaration, with FICAC alleging the omission made the declaration materially false.
Defence lawyer Richard Naidu argued that the prosecution had failed to establish essential elements of the charges and questioned whether the evidence was sufficient for the case to proceed.
Naidu says the defence had two main arguments regarding the primary charge, including whether intent was an essential element and whether the charge was defective for failing to specify an essential element.
He says intent is an element and if it is not proven then there is no case to answer.
His co-counsel Ashish Nand also challenged the prosecution’s reliance on documents to establish that Professor Prasad was a director of the company and was required to disclose that directorship.
He argued that agreeing to tender a document did not mean every statement contained in it was automatically proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Naidu also questioned whether the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to support the alternative charge involving recklessness, arguing that the evidence did not establish that Professor Prasad was aware of a substantial risk that the information had been omitted.
In response, prosecutor Joseph Work argued that the political financing charge did not need to specifically state that it was a strict liability offence.
Work says the defence could still raise a mistake-of-fact or another applicable defence, even if the charge did not expressly identify it as a strict liability offence.
He also argued that there was sufficient evidence to support the alternative recklessness charge, referring to documents relating to Professor Prasad’s directorship and declaration.
Work argued that facts agreed to and signed by both parties should be accepted as proof, while disputed matters would still need to be established.
Magistrate Prasad said he needed time to consider the legal arguments and the material presented before delivering his ruling on 12th November.
