FICAC and defence ready for trial in Professor Prasad caseBy Mansi Chand 15/09/2026
FICAC lawyer Joseph Work says they have finalised the agreed facts and documents in former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad trial.
Work says the trial will include both documentary and oral evidence.
He says all relevant documents has been disclosed to the defence.
Professor Prasad’s lawyer Richard Naidu says there are no issues and he is satisfied with the documents disclosed by the prosecution.
Both parties are ready for trial which is scheduled from 10th to 14th August.
The matter has been adjourned to 3rd August for the final pre-trial conference before the trial.
Professor Prasad has been charged by FICAC with two offences relating to alleged non-disclosure 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 his directorship in Platinum Hotels & Resorts PTE Limited 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 claiming that the omission of the directorship made the declaration materially false.
FICAC seeks to amend Prof Prasad's charge, ruling set for WednesdayBy Mansi Chand 15/09/2026
Magistrate Yogesh Prasad will rule on FICAC’s application to amend the charge against former Deputy Prime Minister, Professor Biman Prasad on Wednesday.
The trial was initially scheduled to start this morning.
FICAC has made changes to the date of the alleged offence and the subsection of the law under which the charge was initially filed, saying the changes are minor.
The defence, however, argued that the changes are not minor and would affect their case.
FICAC lawyer Joseph Work says they are relying on Section 182 of the Criminal Procedure Act to amend the charge.
Work explained that there is no new charge or evidence and that the amendment is not prejudicial to Professor Prasad.
Professor Prasad's lawyer Ashish Nand says Section 182 can be used at any stage of a trial, but not at this stage as they have not entered trial.
Nand says the court should exercise its discretion to first determine whether the charge is defective, as FICAC has not stated this.
Magistrate Prasad questioned how this could be determined at this stage.
Professor Prasad's lawyer Richard Naidu says the amendment sought is not minor and will affect their case.
FICAC alleges that on or about 30th December 2015, Professor Prasad failed to declare his directorship in Platinum Hotels & Resorts PTE Limited 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 claiming that the omission of the directorship made the declaration materially false.
Richard Naidu challenges FICAC evidence as hearsay in Prof. Prasad trialBy Mansi Chand 15/09/2026
Former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad's lawyer Richard Naidu says FICAC is twisting and turning in its attempts to have a disputed document admitted as evidence in the trial.
The disputed document relates to Platinum Hotels and Resorts PTE Limited and contains details of the company's directors and secretary.
Naidu argues that the document is hearsay and that the person who prepared it must give evidence.
He says they do not even know who prepared the document and its contents must be proven to be true.
Naidu says a hearsay document is not admissible and does not constitute the best evidence.
Meanwhile, FICAC lawyer Joseph Work says the document is not hearsay as it qualifies as a public document.
Work says the evidence does not fall under the criteria of hearsay because of the statutory nature of the document and has asked for the objection to be dismissed.
Magistrate Prasad will make his ruling at 11.30am this Friday.
Professor Prasad is charged with failure to comply with statutory disclosure requirements contrary to section 24 (5) of the Political Parties Act.
FICAC alleges that between 30th December 2015 to 31st January 2016, in Suva, being an officeholder of the National Federation Party, registered under the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013, failed to comply with Section 24(1B)(d), by providing to the office of the registrar his declaration of assets, liabilities and income as at 31st December 2015 without disclosing his directorship in Platinum Hotels & Resorts PTE Limited thereby committing an offence contrary to section 24(5) of the said Act.
It is also alleged that on 28th January 2016 in Suva, being an office holder of a registered political party, namely the National Federation Party, recklessly provided false information in a statutory declaration submitted to the Registrar of Political Parties under Section 24 (1B) (d) of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013, solemnly declaring that the particular contained in his declaration of assets, liabilities and income as at 31st December 2015 were true and complete when the declaration omitted his directorship in Platinum Hotels and Resorts PTE Limited, which omission rendered the declaration false in material particular thereby committing an offence contrary to Section 27 (1) (c) of the said Act.
Court rejects Saneem as FICAC witness, accepts disputed documents in Prof. Prasad's trialBy Alipate Narawa 15/09/2026
The Suva Magistrates Court has rejected the application by FICAC to produce former Registrar of Political Parties Mohammed Saneem as a witness but has accepted the true copy of the earlier disputed documents in former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad’s trial.
Defence counsel Richard Naidu claims that the prosecution has not fully disclosed everything that pertains to the case.
Naidu says that FICAC is pulling two witness statements from an earlier case file while the other two witness statements are from a newer file.
Magistrate Yogesh Prasad has asked FICAC counsel Joseph Work to consult with the Investigation Officer responsible for putting the prosecution file together.
Magistrate Prasad has also asked for the Investigation Officer to be produced in court this afternoon to be questioned on the witness statements on file.
Professor Prasad is charged with failure to comply with statutory disclosure requirements contrary to section 24 (5) of the Political Parties Act.
FICAC to answer questions over alleged undisclosed documents in Prof. Prasad's trialBy Rashika Kumar 15/09/2026
Former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad’s counsel Richard Naidu has alleged in court that FICAC has in its possession two more documents that it has not disclosed to the court or the defence.
FICAC will now have to answer questions on whether those documents exist, whether they were disclosed and, if they exist, why they were not disclosed.
Magistrate Yogesh Prasad has ordered that a trial within a trial be held tomorrow to answer the questions posed by Naidu and his co-counsel Ashish Nand.
FICAC counsel Joseph Work told the court that the information being sought will have to be provided through the Investigating Officer, as he does not have the details.
Naidu initially objected to holding a trial within a trial and said Work could simply respond to the questions.
However, he yielded but reserved his position, stating that whether this is the proper procedure or not will eventually emerge.
Magistrate Prasad again questioned Work on whether the documents exist and gave him time to search through his documents.
However, Work maintained that he did not have them with him and said the best person to respond to the questions would be the Investigating Officer.
Nand also highlighted that if the Investigating Officer’s evidence establishes that the documents exist and were not disclosed, the question then is what else FICAC has that could assist the defence but has not been disclosed.
He says these are matters Professor Prasad will have to consider with respect to certain rights he has.
Magistrate Prasad stressed that withholding disclosures will have consequences.
Nand says the second option would be to have FICAC respond to the letter sent to them regarding the questions about the documents.
When questioned by Magistrate Prasad on why he did not want the Investigating Officer to provide the details under oath in court, Naidu joked that he charges by the hour but stressed that it would be more efficient to have a simple response from FICAC instead of holding a trial within a trial.
Nand also highlighted that they need to consider the repercussions and that the public is watching.
He also stressed that they had not asked for the documents to be disclosed, but had questioned whether they exist, whether they were disclosed and, if not, why they were not disclosed.
Magistrate Prasad said he would decide whether the documents need to be disclosed or not, and Nand and Naidu said they would accept whatever they receive under oath from the Investigating Officer.
Meanwhile, Work also raised in court the manner in which Naidu spoke to him, stating that it was unbecoming of a senior counsel. Naidu apologised to Work, saying his tone had been robust.
FICAC investigator says Iyer and Kumar statements were not disclosed because they were not relevantBy Mansi Chand 15/09/2026
Professor Biman Prasad with his lawyers Richard Naidu and Ashish NandFICAC Investigating Officer Asenaca Niumataiwalu has told the Suva Magistrates Court that statements obtained from National Federation Party General Secretary Kamal Iyer and Registered Officer Dalip Kumar were not provided to the defence in former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad’s case because she did not consider them relevant.
Niumataiwalu gave evidence during the hearing after defence lawyer Richard Naidu raised concerns that FICAC had two additional documents that had not been disclosed to the court or the defence.
He had also asked if documents exist, whether they were disclosed to the defence and, if they exist, why they were not disclosed.
She told the court that she conducted two investigations involving Professor Prasad.
Niumataiwalu says FICAC Enquiry Paper 89/25 relates to the current case, in which Professor Prasad is charged with failing to comply with statutory disclosure requirements contrary to Section 24(5) of the Political Parties Act.
She says FICAC Enquiry Paper 41/24 related to a separate, similar matter involving a different company which also relates to Professor Prasad.
Niumataiwalu says when investigators went to the National Federation Party office to present a search warrant and explain the reasons for the search, Iyer used abusive language.
She says FEP 41/24 was closed by the former FICAC Commissioner and Acting Deputy Commissioner last year, but some documents from that file were used in the current matter.
Niumataiwalu says the statements of Iyer and Kumar were not included in the current matter because lawyer Tupou Draunidalo’s statement was considered sufficient.
During cross-examination, Niumataiwalu agreed with Professor Prasad's lawyer Ashish Nand that Draunidalo’s statement was taken after Professor Prasad had been charged.
Niumataiwalu also agreed with Nand that documents FICAC did not consider relevant to its case could have benefited the defence.
Following Niumataiwalu’s questioning, Naidu asked Magistrate Yogesh Prasad for a hearing in chambers regarding issues arising from the proceedings and their duties as officers of the court.
Magistrate Prasad declined the request for the parties to meet in chambers.
The matter will be called again tomorrow for submissions from FICAC counsel Joseph Work and Naidu.
FICAC lawyer Joseph Work says they have finalised the agreed facts and documents in former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad trial.
Work says the trial will include both documentary and oral evidence.
He says all relevant documents has been disclosed to the defence.
Professor Prasad’s lawyer Richard Naidu says there are no issues and he is satisfied with the documents disclosed by the prosecution.
Both parties are ready for trial which is scheduled from 10th to 14th August.
The matter has been adjourned to 3rd August for the final pre-trial conference before the trial.
Professor Prasad has been charged by FICAC with two offences relating to alleged non-disclosure 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 his directorship in Platinum Hotels & Resorts PTE Limited 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 claiming that the omission of the directorship made the declaration materially false.
Richard Naidu challenges FICAC evidence as hearsay in Prof. Prasad trialBy Mansi Chand 15/09/2026Former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad's lawyer Richard Naidu says FICAC is twisting and turning in its attempts to have a disputed document admitted as evidence in the trial.
The disputed document relates to Platinum Hotels and Resorts PTE Limited and contains details of the company's directors and secretary.
Naidu argues that the document is hearsay and that the person who prepared it must give evidence.
He says they do not even know who prepared the document and its contents must be proven to be true.
Naidu says a hearsay document is not admissible and does not constitute the best evidence.
Meanwhile, FICAC lawyer Joseph Work says the document is not hearsay as it qualifies as a public document.
Work says the evidence does not fall under the criteria of hearsay because of the statutory nature of the document and has asked for the objection to be dismissed.
Magistrate Prasad will make his ruling at 11.30am this Friday.
Professor Prasad is charged with failure to comply with statutory disclosure requirements contrary to section 24 (5) of the Political Parties Act.
FICAC alleges that between 30th December 2015 to 31st January 2016, in Suva, being an officeholder of the National Federation Party, registered under the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013, failed to comply with Section 24(1B)(d), by providing to the office of the registrar his declaration of assets, liabilities and income as at 31st December 2015 without disclosing his directorship in Platinum Hotels & Resorts PTE Limited thereby committing an offence contrary to section 24(5) of the said Act.
It is also alleged that on 28th January 2016 in Suva, being an office holder of a registered political party, namely the National Federation Party, recklessly provided false information in a statutory declaration submitted to the Registrar of Political Parties under Section 24 (1B) (d) of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013, solemnly declaring that the particular contained in his declaration of assets, liabilities and income as at 31st December 2015 were true and complete when the declaration omitted his directorship in Platinum Hotels and Resorts PTE Limited, which omission rendered the declaration false in material particular thereby committing an offence contrary to Section 27 (1) (c) of the said Act.
Court rejects Saneem as FICAC witness, accepts disputed documents in Prof. Prasad's trialBy Alipate Narawa 15/09/2026The Suva Magistrates Court has rejected the application by FICAC to produce former Registrar of Political Parties Mohammed Saneem as a witness but has accepted the true copy of the earlier disputed documents in former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad’s trial.
Defence counsel Richard Naidu claims that the prosecution has not fully disclosed everything that pertains to the case.
Naidu says that FICAC is pulling two witness statements from an earlier case file while the other two witness statements are from a newer file.
Magistrate Yogesh Prasad has asked FICAC counsel Joseph Work to consult with the Investigation Officer responsible for putting the prosecution file together.
Magistrate Prasad has also asked for the Investigation Officer to be produced in court this afternoon to be questioned on the witness statements on file.
Professor Prasad is charged with failure to comply with statutory disclosure requirements contrary to section 24 (5) of the Political Parties Act.
FICAC to answer questions over alleged undisclosed documents in Prof. Prasad's trialBy Rashika Kumar 15/09/2026Former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad’s counsel Richard Naidu has alleged in court that FICAC has in its possession two more documents that it has not disclosed to the court or the defence.
FICAC will now have to answer questions on whether those documents exist, whether they were disclosed and, if they exist, why they were not disclosed.
Magistrate Yogesh Prasad has ordered that a trial within a trial be held tomorrow to answer the questions posed by Naidu and his co-counsel Ashish Nand.
FICAC counsel Joseph Work told the court that the information being sought will have to be provided through the Investigating Officer, as he does not have the details.
Naidu initially objected to holding a trial within a trial and said Work could simply respond to the questions.
However, he yielded but reserved his position, stating that whether this is the proper procedure or not will eventually emerge.
Magistrate Prasad again questioned Work on whether the documents exist and gave him time to search through his documents.
However, Work maintained that he did not have them with him and said the best person to respond to the questions would be the Investigating Officer.
Nand also highlighted that if the Investigating Officer’s evidence establishes that the documents exist and were not disclosed, the question then is what else FICAC has that could assist the defence but has not been disclosed.
He says these are matters Professor Prasad will have to consider with respect to certain rights he has.
Magistrate Prasad stressed that withholding disclosures will have consequences.
Nand says the second option would be to have FICAC respond to the letter sent to them regarding the questions about the documents.
When questioned by Magistrate Prasad on why he did not want the Investigating Officer to provide the details under oath in court, Naidu joked that he charges by the hour but stressed that it would be more efficient to have a simple response from FICAC instead of holding a trial within a trial.
Nand also highlighted that they need to consider the repercussions and that the public is watching.
He also stressed that they had not asked for the documents to be disclosed, but had questioned whether they exist, whether they were disclosed and, if not, why they were not disclosed.
Magistrate Prasad said he would decide whether the documents need to be disclosed or not, and Nand and Naidu said they would accept whatever they receive under oath from the Investigating Officer.
Meanwhile, Work also raised in court the manner in which Naidu spoke to him, stating that it was unbecoming of a senior counsel. Naidu apologised to Work, saying his tone had been robust.
FICAC investigator says Iyer and Kumar statements were not disclosed because they were not relevantBy Mansi Chand 15/09/2026Professor Biman Prasad with his lawyers Richard Naidu and Ashish NandFICAC Investigating Officer Asenaca Niumataiwalu has told the Suva Magistrates Court that statements obtained from National Federation Party General Secretary Kamal Iyer and Registered Officer Dalip Kumar were not provided to the defence in former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad’s case because she did not consider them relevant.
Niumataiwalu gave evidence during the hearing after defence lawyer Richard Naidu raised concerns that FICAC had two additional documents that had not been disclosed to the court or the defence.
He had also asked if documents exist, whether they were disclosed to the defence and, if they exist, why they were not disclosed.
She told the court that she conducted two investigations involving Professor Prasad.
Niumataiwalu says FICAC Enquiry Paper 89/25 relates to the current case, in which Professor Prasad is charged with failing to comply with statutory disclosure requirements contrary to Section 24(5) of the Political Parties Act.
She says FICAC Enquiry Paper 41/24 related to a separate, similar matter involving a different company which also relates to Professor Prasad.
Niumataiwalu says when investigators went to the National Federation Party office to present a search warrant and explain the reasons for the search, Iyer used abusive language.
She says FEP 41/24 was closed by the former FICAC Commissioner and Acting Deputy Commissioner last year, but some documents from that file were used in the current matter.
Niumataiwalu says the statements of Iyer and Kumar were not included in the current matter because lawyer Tupou Draunidalo’s statement was considered sufficient.
During cross-examination, Niumataiwalu agreed with Professor Prasad's lawyer Ashish Nand that Draunidalo’s statement was taken after Professor Prasad had been charged.
Niumataiwalu also agreed with Nand that documents FICAC did not consider relevant to its case could have benefited the defence.
Following Niumataiwalu’s questioning, Naidu asked Magistrate Yogesh Prasad for a hearing in chambers regarding issues arising from the proceedings and their duties as officers of the court.
Magistrate Prasad declined the request for the parties to meet in chambers.
The matter will be called again tomorrow for submissions from FICAC counsel Joseph Work and Naidu.
Former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad's lawyer Richard Naidu says FICAC is twisting and turning in its attempts to have a disputed document admitted as evidence in the trial.
The disputed document relates to Platinum Hotels and Resorts PTE Limited and contains details of the company's directors and secretary.
Naidu argues that the document is hearsay and that the person who prepared it must give evidence.
He says they do not even know who prepared the document and its contents must be proven to be true.
Naidu says a hearsay document is not admissible and does not constitute the best evidence.
Meanwhile, FICAC lawyer Joseph Work says the document is not hearsay as it qualifies as a public document.
Work says the evidence does not fall under the criteria of hearsay because of the statutory nature of the document and has asked for the objection to be dismissed.
Magistrate Prasad will make his ruling at 11.30am this Friday.
Professor Prasad is charged with failure to comply with statutory disclosure requirements contrary to section 24 (5) of the Political Parties Act.
FICAC alleges that between 30th December 2015 to 31st January 2016, in Suva, being an officeholder of the National Federation Party, registered under the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013, failed to comply with Section 24(1B)(d), by providing to the office of the registrar his declaration of assets, liabilities and income as at 31st December 2015 without disclosing his directorship in Platinum Hotels & Resorts PTE Limited thereby committing an offence contrary to section 24(5) of the said Act.
It is also alleged that on 28th January 2016 in Suva, being an office holder of a registered political party, namely the National Federation Party, recklessly provided false information in a statutory declaration submitted to the Registrar of Political Parties under Section 24 (1B) (d) of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013, solemnly declaring that the particular contained in his declaration of assets, liabilities and income as at 31st December 2015 were true and complete when the declaration omitted his directorship in Platinum Hotels and Resorts PTE Limited, which omission rendered the declaration false in material particular thereby committing an offence contrary to Section 27 (1) (c) of the said Act.
FICAC to answer questions over alleged undisclosed documents in Prof. Prasad's trialBy Rashika Kumar 15/09/2026Former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad’s counsel Richard Naidu has alleged in court that FICAC has in its possession two more documents that it has not disclosed to the court or the defence.
FICAC will now have to answer questions on whether those documents exist, whether they were disclosed and, if they exist, why they were not disclosed.
Magistrate Yogesh Prasad has ordered that a trial within a trial be held tomorrow to answer the questions posed by Naidu and his co-counsel Ashish Nand.
FICAC counsel Joseph Work told the court that the information being sought will have to be provided through the Investigating Officer, as he does not have the details.
Naidu initially objected to holding a trial within a trial and said Work could simply respond to the questions.
However, he yielded but reserved his position, stating that whether this is the proper procedure or not will eventually emerge.
Magistrate Prasad again questioned Work on whether the documents exist and gave him time to search through his documents.
However, Work maintained that he did not have them with him and said the best person to respond to the questions would be the Investigating Officer.
Nand also highlighted that if the Investigating Officer’s evidence establishes that the documents exist and were not disclosed, the question then is what else FICAC has that could assist the defence but has not been disclosed.
He says these are matters Professor Prasad will have to consider with respect to certain rights he has.
Magistrate Prasad stressed that withholding disclosures will have consequences.
Nand says the second option would be to have FICAC respond to the letter sent to them regarding the questions about the documents.
When questioned by Magistrate Prasad on why he did not want the Investigating Officer to provide the details under oath in court, Naidu joked that he charges by the hour but stressed that it would be more efficient to have a simple response from FICAC instead of holding a trial within a trial.
Nand also highlighted that they need to consider the repercussions and that the public is watching.
He also stressed that they had not asked for the documents to be disclosed, but had questioned whether they exist, whether they were disclosed and, if not, why they were not disclosed.
Magistrate Prasad said he would decide whether the documents need to be disclosed or not, and Nand and Naidu said they would accept whatever they receive under oath from the Investigating Officer.
Meanwhile, Work also raised in court the manner in which Naidu spoke to him, stating that it was unbecoming of a senior counsel. Naidu apologised to Work, saying his tone had been robust.
FICAC investigator says Iyer and Kumar statements were not disclosed because they were not relevantBy Mansi Chand 15/09/2026Professor Biman Prasad with his lawyers Richard Naidu and Ashish NandFICAC Investigating Officer Asenaca Niumataiwalu has told the Suva Magistrates Court that statements obtained from National Federation Party General Secretary Kamal Iyer and Registered Officer Dalip Kumar were not provided to the defence in former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad’s case because she did not consider them relevant.
Niumataiwalu gave evidence during the hearing after defence lawyer Richard Naidu raised concerns that FICAC had two additional documents that had not been disclosed to the court or the defence.
He had also asked if documents exist, whether they were disclosed to the defence and, if they exist, why they were not disclosed.
She told the court that she conducted two investigations involving Professor Prasad.
Niumataiwalu says FICAC Enquiry Paper 89/25 relates to the current case, in which Professor Prasad is charged with failing to comply with statutory disclosure requirements contrary to Section 24(5) of the Political Parties Act.
She says FICAC Enquiry Paper 41/24 related to a separate, similar matter involving a different company which also relates to Professor Prasad.
Niumataiwalu says when investigators went to the National Federation Party office to present a search warrant and explain the reasons for the search, Iyer used abusive language.
She says FEP 41/24 was closed by the former FICAC Commissioner and Acting Deputy Commissioner last year, but some documents from that file were used in the current matter.
Niumataiwalu says the statements of Iyer and Kumar were not included in the current matter because lawyer Tupou Draunidalo’s statement was considered sufficient.
During cross-examination, Niumataiwalu agreed with Professor Prasad's lawyer Ashish Nand that Draunidalo’s statement was taken after Professor Prasad had been charged.
Niumataiwalu also agreed with Nand that documents FICAC did not consider relevant to its case could have benefited the defence.
Following Niumataiwalu’s questioning, Naidu asked Magistrate Yogesh Prasad for a hearing in chambers regarding issues arising from the proceedings and their duties as officers of the court.
Magistrate Prasad declined the request for the parties to meet in chambers.
The matter will be called again tomorrow for submissions from FICAC counsel Joseph Work and Naidu.
FICAC Investigating Officer Asenaca Niumataiwalu has told the Suva Magistrates Court that statements obtained from National Federation Party General Secretary Kamal Iyer and Registered Officer Dalip Kumar were not provided to the defence in former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad’s case because she did not consider them relevant.
Niumataiwalu gave evidence during the hearing after defence lawyer Richard Naidu raised concerns that FICAC had two additional documents that had not been disclosed to the court or the defence.
He had also asked if documents exist, whether they were disclosed to the defence and, if they exist, why they were not disclosed.
She told the court that she conducted two investigations involving Professor Prasad.
Niumataiwalu says FICAC Enquiry Paper 89/25 relates to the current case, in which Professor Prasad is charged with failing to comply with statutory disclosure requirements contrary to Section 24(5) of the Political Parties Act.
She says FICAC Enquiry Paper 41/24 related to a separate, similar matter involving a different company which also relates to Professor Prasad.
Niumataiwalu says when investigators went to the National Federation Party office to present a search warrant and explain the reasons for the search, Iyer used abusive language.
She says FEP 41/24 was closed by the former FICAC Commissioner and Acting Deputy Commissioner last year, but some documents from that file were used in the current matter.
Niumataiwalu says the statements of Iyer and Kumar were not included in the current matter because lawyer Tupou Draunidalo’s statement was considered sufficient.
During cross-examination, Niumataiwalu agreed with Professor Prasad's lawyer Ashish Nand that Draunidalo’s statement was taken after Professor Prasad had been charged.
Niumataiwalu also agreed with Nand that documents FICAC did not consider relevant to its case could have benefited the defence.
Following Niumataiwalu’s questioning, Naidu asked Magistrate Yogesh Prasad for a hearing in chambers regarding issues arising from the proceedings and their duties as officers of the court.
Magistrate Prasad declined the request for the parties to meet in chambers.
The matter will be called again tomorrow for submissions from FICAC counsel Joseph Work and Naidu.
