The Suva Magistrates Court has ruled that the document being introduced by FICAC as evidence in the trial against former Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the National Federation Party Professor Biman Prasad is not hearsay and the trial now continues.
The disputed document relates to Platinum Hotels and Resorts PTE Limited and contains details of the company's directors and secretary.
Professor Prasad's counsel Richard Naidu argued that the document is hearsay and that the person who prepared it must give evidence while FICAC counsel Joseph Work had argued that it not hearsay as it is a statutory document.
Magistrate Yogesh Prasad made his ruling this morning and the trial continues on Monday.
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.
