There is no reason why there is an undue 10-year delay between when the alleged offence occurred and when former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad was charged by FICAC.
King's Counsel Martin Daubney has highlighted this during the hearing on Professor Prasad’s application for a permanent stay on proceedings brought against him by FICAC.
Daubney there is no explanation for the delay and the delay itself is an evidence of the abuse of process.
He also says that it is evident that there is no complaint to FICAC which has led to bringing the charge.
He says FICAC had said that they received the complaint in 2024 but as far as they are concerned, there is no affidavit to support this.
He also says no one is claiming to have been adversely affected or prejudiced by the alleged non-disclosure.
Daubney has also argued that there is no communication with Professor Prasad before he was served any summons.
The King’s Counsel further argues that it is alleged that Professor Prasad breached Section 24 of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act which applies to people who fall within the ambit of the term ‘office holder’.
He submits that Professor Prasad simply does not fall within the definition of the term ‘office holder’.
Daubney says because Professor Prasad is not an office holder, the prosecution is foredoomed to fail as the charge is completely incompetent and FICAC will never succeed.
He has also argued that FICAC did not do a caution interview before they charged Professor Prasad and the only explanation given in the Magistrates Court by FICAC Counsel Joseph Work is that Professor Prasad was overseas at that time.
The King’s Counsel asks why they could not wait for him to return for a caution interview.
He adds that if that is not a red alert of a bad faith, they do not know what is.
While responding, FICAC counsel Joseph Work says when a victim delays reporting an alleged crime, the test is not whether the delay is justified but whether a fair trial is possible.
He submits that in this case, a fair trial is possible and there have been cases where the remedy to stay applications have been a speedy trial.
Work says there are no breaches to any of Professor Prasad’s constitutional rights as the case is before the Magistrates Court and is at a pre-trial stage.
He says the King’s Counsel has argued that no one was prejudiced by the alleged non-disclosure, but FICAC submits that it is in the public interest for these charges to be brought, and therefore there is prejudice.
Acting FICAC Commissioner Lavi Rokoika also argued that there is no requirement to notify anyone if they are going to be arrested or if summons will be issued against them.
She also says the FICAC Act does not have a limitation to the powers with respect to when a case can be brought forward.
While responding to Daubney’s submission on the delay between the alleged offence and the charge, Rokoika says that it was mentioned in the Magistrates Court that the complaint was received by the FICAC in 2024.
Daubney objected and called for the complaint document that have been referred in FICAC’s submission.
Rokoika responded that these are trial matters, however, Daubney objected to any submission FICAC make in reliance of the existence of this complaint document.
Rokoika chose to move on to another matter, and when questioned by Justice Bull, she said that she will not respond.
She continued her argument and states that Professor Prasad was overseas when the summons were filed.
Daubney again objected and asked if FICAC is going to tell stories from the Bar.
Rokoika withdrew her statement and responded that there is no law stating that FICAC needs to conduct a caution interview of the suspects.
She says there being no caution interview does not mean that Professor Prasad’s constitutional rights are breached.
In his right of reply, Daubney says in response to his submission that no person had been prejudiced due to Professor Prasad’s alleged offence, Work had said that considering the interest of the public, there is prejudice.
Daubney says this is unusual as now the prosecutor will decide based on the interest of the public.
He stresses that this submission by FICAC constitutes an abrogation of proper prosecutorial standard.
Justice Bull will deliver her ruling on the permanent stay application on the 1st of May.
Stay tuned for the latest news on our radio stations
