Prime Minister, Sitiveni Rabuka says National Federation Party Leader, Professor Biman Prasad, will be sworn-in as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Employment, Productivity and Workplace Relations next week when Government House is ready.
However, Professor Prasad has said that because of the NFP's current disagreement over the Constitution Amendment Bill, he needs to carefully consider whether he would return to cabinet at this stage.
Speaking to fijivillage News today, Prime Minister Rabuka who was earlier in Vanua Levu, says he is in the western division now.
Rabuka says he asked the office to arrange for Professor Prasad's swearing-in today but President Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu is busy in the west.
When asked on whether there will be any conditions before Professor Prasad is reappointed as a cabinet minister and Deputy Prime Minister as Professor Prasad has made it clear that he will vote against the Constitution Amendment Bill and wants further consultations after the general elections, Rabuka says there will be no conditions.
Rabuka says if Professor Prasad says he will vote against the Constitution Bill, any action taken can only be the 'result' of that vote, not the 'intention' to vote that way.
When contacted by fijivillage News today, Professor Prasad says he has not heard from the Prime Minister at all.
Professor Biman Prasad who was the former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance, was acquitted of both charges in his FICAC case after the court found that the prosecution had failed to prove an essential element of the alleged offences.
Magistrate Yogesh Prasad found that FICAC had failed to establish that Professor Prasad was legally an office holder under the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013.
He said the definition of an office holder under Section 2 of the Act specifically lists the president, vice-president, treasurer, secretary and registered officers of a political party, but does not include the position of party leader.
The court also heard that FICAC relied on the argument that Professor Prasad was an office holder because he had been appointed as the NFP leader, with the prosecution referring to a letter dated 3rd June 2014 and the party's constitution.
Magistrate Prasad said that FICAC had also argued that Section 2 of the Act should be interpreted to include a party leader who was elected through the party's internal processes.
However, the defence had challenged this interpretation, submitting that there was no evidence that Professor Prasad was appointed or elected to any of the positions specifically recognised as office holders under the Act.
He said the defence also argued that the position of party leader was not included in the legal definition of an office holder under the legislation.
Magistrate Prasad said the plain and literal meaning of the law had to be applied and that the court could not add to or alter the wording of the legislation.
He said extending the definition of office holder to include a party leader, when the position was not expressly listed in the Act, would not be justified.
Referring to Section 5(3)(a) and (b) of the Act, which sets out the qualifications and disqualifications for individuals serving as office holders of registered political parties, Magistrate Prasad concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove that Professor Prasad was an office holder, which was an essential ingredient of both the main charge and the alternative count.
The no case to answer ruling followed the closure of the prosecution's case after FICAC called three witnesses.
