The Suva High Court has stayed proceedings in the case of Mahendra Chaudhry against the State regarding Chaudhry’s application that he is eligible to contest this year’s general election.
Justice Kamal Kumar has stayed proceedings until Mahendra Chaudhry and Karam Bidesi pay costs of $2,000 to the State and the Attorney General.
In a previous matter which was struck out by the High Court, Justice David Alfred had ordered Chaudhry and Bidesi to pay costs of $2,000 to the State and the Attorney General.
Justice Kumar has also ordered that Chaudhry also pay costs of $500 within seven days to the defendant for the case called this morning.
Solicitor General, Sharvada Sharma had asked if Chaudhry could pay costs of the sitting this morning as they have only come to court to have the matter stayed.
Sharma had also told Justice Kumar that the costs of $2,000 in a previous matter where he also appeared have not been paid.
In this case, Chaudhry is challenging that he is eligible to contest the election.
Chaudhry's lawyer said his client was charged before the constitution came into force.
He also asked for an adjournment so all parties can come back to a level playing field.
Sharvada Sharma also indicated today that they will make a strike out application.
Mahendra Chaudhry and Karam Bidesi’s attempt to be allowed to contest this year’s election failed in July 2017 after they withdrew their application at the time and the High Court struck out the matter.
Chaudhry and Bidesi were challenging the provision in the constitution, saying that it prevents them from standing in this year’s election.
They say that this is unconstitutional and it contravenes their constitutional right.
According to the constitution a person may be a candidate for election to parliament only if the person has not, at any time during the 8 years immediately before being nominated, being convicted of any offence under any law for which the maximum penalty is a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
Sharvada Sharma had said at the time that the court does not have the jurisdiction to hear this matter and made an application to strike it out.
