Work says the trial will include both documentary and oral evidence.
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.
Naidu objects to FICAC evidence as hearsay in Prof. Biman Prasad caseBy Alipate Narawa 15/09/2026
Former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad’s lawyer, Richard Naidu, has filed an objection to evidence tendered by FICAC, calling it hearsay, in the Suva Magistrates Court this morning.
Naidu says the document tendered by FICAC cannot be called evidence because it is hearsay, as it was produced to, not by, FICAC.
The matter was heard before Magistrate Yogesh Prasad.
Magistrate Prasad has told FICAC counsel Joseph Work to respond to Naidu's objections and he will listen to their submissions tomorrow before making his ruling on Thursday.
Magistrate Prasad will call the case at 11.30am tomorrow for submissions.
FICAC has made changes to the date of the alleged offence and the section of the law under which the charge was initially filed.
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.
Richard Naidu challenges FICAC evidence as hearsay in Prof. Prasad trialBy Mansi Chand 17/09/2026
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.
Disputed FICAC document is not hearsay in Prof Prasad case - court rulesBy Alipate Narawa 17/09/2026
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.
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.
Court to rule this afternoon on FICAC disclosure issue in Prof. Prasad's FICAC caseBy Rashika Kumar 17/09/2026
The Suva Magistrates Court will deliver its ruling this afternoon after former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad’s counsel, Richard Naidu, asked whether FICAC has two more pieces of undisclosed evidence, whether they have been disclosed to the defence and, if not, the reason for this.
FICAC lawyer Joseph Work says the three questions raised by the defence have been answered through the evidence of Investigating Officer Asenaca Niumataiwalu.
Work says Niumataiwalu confirmed there were two investigation files concerning Professor Prasad, FEP 41/24 and FEP 89/25 where FEP 89/25 resulted in the current proceedings.
He says FEP 41/24 had been closed, while statements from National Federation Party officials Dalip Kumar and Kamal Iyer remained in that file.
Work says Niumataiwalu did not include the two statements in the investigation file for FEP 89/25 that was handed to FICAC's Legal Department because she did not consider them relevant to that investigation.
He says Niumataiwalu had stated that Tupou Draunidalo's statement was sufficient in relation to the relevant documents and the elements of the offences being investigated.
He says Niumataiwalu also confirmed that she was only aware of what she had provided to FICAC's Legal Department and not what was subsequently disclosed to the defence.
However, Naidu says two of the three questions remain unanswered.
He says the Investigating Officer confirmed that FICAC holds the statements but could not say whether they had been disclosed to the defence.
Naidu says Niumataiwalu made it clear that disclosure to the defence was not the responsibility of the investigation team.
He says if the investigating officer could not answer whether the statements had been disclosed to the defence, she also could not answer why they had not been disclosed.
Naidu says the defence is not concerned about how documents are disclosed internally within FICAC but whether relevant material was disclosed by FICAC to the defence.
Naidu says the answers to the three questions are necessary for the defence to advise Professor Prasad on what steps to take next.
He says the options could include seeking disclosure of the documents, waiving the right to them and continuing with the trial, or potentially seeking a permanent stay of proceedings from the High Court if the non-disclosure is considered sufficiently material.
Naidu further told the court that it now appeared other statements may also exist and questioned what other potentially relevant material could be contained in the closed FEP 41/24 file.
He says the issue is therefore no longer limited to the two statements because the defence does not know what other material may exist that could be relevant or assist Prasad's defence.
Naidu says the matter raises broader questions about FICAC's handling of potentially relevant evidence and its disclosure obligations.
He submitted that a prosecutor has a duty to the court which overrides the prosecutor's interest in the case and also has a fundamental duty to disclose relevant material, including material that may assist an accused person.
Naidu says somebody within FICAC has to take responsibility for the prosecution's disclosure obligations and, if those obligations have been breached, it could have consequences for the entire trial.
He further submitted that if potentially helpful information was withheld internally because an investigator considered it unreliable or irrelevant, this raised concerns about FICAC's approach to material that could assist an accused person.
Naidu says the defence has been fundamentally disadvantaged regardless of where within FICAC responsibility for any non-disclosure may lie.
He says disclosure at this stage may not necessarily resolve the issue because the trial has already progressed on the basis of the material previously disclosed.
Naidu says pre-trial conferences had already taken place and facts and documents had been agreed on the basis of the disclosure available to the defence at the time.
He says the defence may have approached those matters differently if all relevant material had been disclosed earlier and its trial strategy may also have been affected.
Naidu says until the defence knows what other material exists and the reasons for any non-disclosure, it cannot properly advise Professor Prasad on what steps he should take next.
He says if the court wants the unanswered questions resolved, FICAC should produce a person who can answer whether the documents were disclosed to the defence and, if they were not, explain why.
Naidu also requested a transcript of the earlier evidence so the defence could review it and advise Professor Prasad on the next steps.
Work objected to parts of Naidu's submissions, saying the defence was moving beyond the three questions that led to the inquiry and into issues that should be dealt with through the appropriate legal process.
He says if the defence wants to raise issues relating to a stay of proceedings or alleged misconduct, those matters should be dealt with in the appropriate forum.
Work says questions about why the investigating officer used material from another investigation can be put to her during the trial when she gives evidence about her investigation.
He maintains the three questions have been answered and says the trial needs to progress.
Work also told the court that FICAC would endeavour to provide the defence with the transcript and could provide the audio recording in the interim.
The court also heard that the statements of Kumar and Iyer formed part of FEP 41/24 and were not part of the investigation file for the current proceedings.
When the Magistrate Yogesh Prasad asked whether the defence wanted the statements disclosed, Naidu said they would receive them but added that the concern was what other material may exist.
Naidu accepted Work's offer to provide the audio recording of the proceedings from yesterday.
The Magistrate will deliver the ruling this afternoon.
Magistrate rejects Naidu’s application to temporarily halt Prof. Prasad’s FICAC trial pending High Court stay applicationBy Rashika Kumar 17/09/2026
Suva Magistrate Yogesh Prasad has rejected former Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad’s counsel Richard Naidu’s application for temporarily halting the trial currently underway as he intends to file a permanent stay on proceedings in the High Court.
This comes as Magistrate Prasad has ordered FICAC to disclose two witness statements from Professor Prasad’s counsel.
The ruling was made after Naidu challenged the non-disclosure of the statements, which were recorded during an earlier investigation.
The court found that the statements exist and could assist the defence.
Magistrate Prasad has stressed that the prosecution has a duty to disclose all material information relating to the charges before trial.
He says this includes evidence the prosecution intends to rely on, as well as unused material that the prosecution possesses or considers could assist the defence.
Magistrate Prasad says there should be full disclosure and there cannot be a pick-and-choose approach to what material is disclosed.
The Magistrate accepted the investigator’s evidence that the decision not to use the two statements was based on relevance and that an investigator has discretion when gathering evidence during an investigation.
While rejecting Naidu’s application, Magistrate Prasad said that the trial is afoot and unless a High Court orders him, there is nothing stopping him from continuing the trial.
Naidu stressed that his application be put to record.
The trial then continued where the first witness, the Supervisor with the Registrar of Companies office in Suva, Manasa Talemaipapalagi told the court that on 19th February, 2016, Professor Prasad and Sunil Chand ceased being the directors of Platinum Hotel and Resorts Limited.
He says the documents were received by the Office on the 10th of May, 2016.
Meanwhile, Naidu objected to the admittance of these documents, stating that if Talemaipapalagi is not going to say how he got the Registrar of Companies then it is hearsay.
Magistrate Prasad allowed the documents to be admitted as facts, however, clarified that it is up to him what weight he gives to the documents.
The trial continues on Monday.
Prof. Prasad’s FICAC case put on hold as High Court to hear stay applicationBy Rashika Kumar 17/09/2026
The Suva Magistrates Court has put the FICAC case against former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad on hold until Thursday, with the High Court scheduled to hear today an application seeking an interim stay of the proceedings.
FICAC lawyer Joseph Work says there is nothing preventing the Magistrates Court from continuing with the proceedings despite the application filed by Professor Prasad’s counsel Richard Naidu in the High Court.
He says the witnesses are still available and the prosecution can continue taking evidence.
Work acknowledges that an application has been filed in the High Court but says the Magistrates Court is not bound by the High Court proceedings at this stage.
Naidu submitted that it would be prudent for the Magistrates Court to wait for the High Court to consider the application before continuing with the proceedings.
The matter has been adjourned to Thursday morning for mention and further directions.
High Court to decide Monday whether FICAC case against Prof. Prasad will continueBy Mansi Chand 18/09/2026
The Suva High Court will decide on Monday whether the FICAC case against former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad will continue or not after Professor Prasad’s lawyer, Richard Naidu made submissions stating that FICAC must face consequences for failure to disclose material that could assist the defence.
The defence is seeking a permanent stay of the proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court where Professor Prasad is charged with two offences relating to alleged non-disclosure in his 2015 statutory declaration while he was an office holder of the National Federation Party.
Naidu says FICAC deliberately withheld two NFP statements, as well as other statements which could have been relevant to the defence.
He says FICAC had failed in its fundamental responsibility to disclose relevant material and said there must be consequences for reckless conduct.
Naidu says consequences are necessary to provide an incentive for FICAC to change its behaviour.
He referred to evidence from FICAC Investigating Officer Asenaca Niumataiwalu, who agreed that material potentially helpful to the defence had been withheld.
Naidu says this is a case without precedent.
The defence lawyer says Niumataiwalu is not an unreliable witness.
Naidu also told the court that Professor Prasad is a parliamentarian and that General Eection could happen any time.
He argued that the alleged disclosure failures had already caused damage to his client.
Naidu says Professor Prasad’s constitutional rights had been breached and urged the court to grant a permanent stay.
Meanwhile, FICAC lawyer Joseph Work says the defence is unfamiliar of criminal procedures and there's abuse of process by them.
Work says they need to prove actual prejudice.
Justice Thushara Rajasinghe stressed that FICAC could have avoided unnecessary hearing and voir dire if they responded to the questions asked by defence.
Work further says this is the second attempt for stay proceedings.
The judgement will be delivered on Monday.
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.
Naidu objects to FICAC evidence as hearsay in Prof. Biman Prasad caseBy Alipate Narawa 15/09/2026Former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad’s lawyer, Richard Naidu, has filed an objection to evidence tendered by FICAC, calling it hearsay, in the Suva Magistrates Court this morning.
Naidu says the document tendered by FICAC cannot be called evidence because it is hearsay, as it was produced to, not by, FICAC.
The matter was heard before Magistrate Yogesh Prasad.
Magistrate Prasad has told FICAC counsel Joseph Work to respond to Naidu's objections and he will listen to their submissions tomorrow before making his ruling on Thursday.
Magistrate Prasad will call the case at 11.30am tomorrow for submissions.
FICAC has made changes to the date of the alleged offence and the section of the law under which the charge was initially filed.
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.
Richard Naidu challenges FICAC evidence as hearsay in Prof. Prasad trialBy Mansi Chand 17/09/2026Former 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.
Disputed FICAC document is not hearsay in Prof Prasad case - court rulesBy Alipate Narawa 17/09/2026The 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.
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.
Court to rule this afternoon on FICAC disclosure issue in Prof. Prasad's FICAC caseBy Rashika Kumar 17/09/2026The Suva Magistrates Court will deliver its ruling this afternoon after former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad’s counsel, Richard Naidu, asked whether FICAC has two more pieces of undisclosed evidence, whether they have been disclosed to the defence and, if not, the reason for this.
FICAC lawyer Joseph Work says the three questions raised by the defence have been answered through the evidence of Investigating Officer Asenaca Niumataiwalu.
Work says Niumataiwalu confirmed there were two investigation files concerning Professor Prasad, FEP 41/24 and FEP 89/25 where FEP 89/25 resulted in the current proceedings.
He says FEP 41/24 had been closed, while statements from National Federation Party officials Dalip Kumar and Kamal Iyer remained in that file.
Work says Niumataiwalu did not include the two statements in the investigation file for FEP 89/25 that was handed to FICAC's Legal Department because she did not consider them relevant to that investigation.
He says Niumataiwalu had stated that Tupou Draunidalo's statement was sufficient in relation to the relevant documents and the elements of the offences being investigated.
He says Niumataiwalu also confirmed that she was only aware of what she had provided to FICAC's Legal Department and not what was subsequently disclosed to the defence.
However, Naidu says two of the three questions remain unanswered.
He says the Investigating Officer confirmed that FICAC holds the statements but could not say whether they had been disclosed to the defence.
Naidu says Niumataiwalu made it clear that disclosure to the defence was not the responsibility of the investigation team.
He says if the investigating officer could not answer whether the statements had been disclosed to the defence, she also could not answer why they had not been disclosed.
Naidu says the defence is not concerned about how documents are disclosed internally within FICAC but whether relevant material was disclosed by FICAC to the defence.
Naidu says the answers to the three questions are necessary for the defence to advise Professor Prasad on what steps to take next.
He says the options could include seeking disclosure of the documents, waiving the right to them and continuing with the trial, or potentially seeking a permanent stay of proceedings from the High Court if the non-disclosure is considered sufficiently material.
Naidu further told the court that it now appeared other statements may also exist and questioned what other potentially relevant material could be contained in the closed FEP 41/24 file.
He says the issue is therefore no longer limited to the two statements because the defence does not know what other material may exist that could be relevant or assist Prasad's defence.
Naidu says the matter raises broader questions about FICAC's handling of potentially relevant evidence and its disclosure obligations.
He submitted that a prosecutor has a duty to the court which overrides the prosecutor's interest in the case and also has a fundamental duty to disclose relevant material, including material that may assist an accused person.
Naidu says somebody within FICAC has to take responsibility for the prosecution's disclosure obligations and, if those obligations have been breached, it could have consequences for the entire trial.
He further submitted that if potentially helpful information was withheld internally because an investigator considered it unreliable or irrelevant, this raised concerns about FICAC's approach to material that could assist an accused person.
Naidu says the defence has been fundamentally disadvantaged regardless of where within FICAC responsibility for any non-disclosure may lie.
He says disclosure at this stage may not necessarily resolve the issue because the trial has already progressed on the basis of the material previously disclosed.
Naidu says pre-trial conferences had already taken place and facts and documents had been agreed on the basis of the disclosure available to the defence at the time.
He says the defence may have approached those matters differently if all relevant material had been disclosed earlier and its trial strategy may also have been affected.
Naidu says until the defence knows what other material exists and the reasons for any non-disclosure, it cannot properly advise Professor Prasad on what steps he should take next.
He says if the court wants the unanswered questions resolved, FICAC should produce a person who can answer whether the documents were disclosed to the defence and, if they were not, explain why.
Naidu also requested a transcript of the earlier evidence so the defence could review it and advise Professor Prasad on the next steps.
Work objected to parts of Naidu's submissions, saying the defence was moving beyond the three questions that led to the inquiry and into issues that should be dealt with through the appropriate legal process.
He says if the defence wants to raise issues relating to a stay of proceedings or alleged misconduct, those matters should be dealt with in the appropriate forum.
Work says questions about why the investigating officer used material from another investigation can be put to her during the trial when she gives evidence about her investigation.
He maintains the three questions have been answered and says the trial needs to progress.
Work also told the court that FICAC would endeavour to provide the defence with the transcript and could provide the audio recording in the interim.
The court also heard that the statements of Kumar and Iyer formed part of FEP 41/24 and were not part of the investigation file for the current proceedings.
When the Magistrate Yogesh Prasad asked whether the defence wanted the statements disclosed, Naidu said they would receive them but added that the concern was what other material may exist.
Naidu accepted Work's offer to provide the audio recording of the proceedings from yesterday.
The Magistrate will deliver the ruling this afternoon.
Magistrate rejects Naidu’s application to temporarily halt Prof. Prasad’s FICAC trial pending High Court stay applicationBy Rashika Kumar 17/09/2026Suva Magistrate Yogesh Prasad has rejected former Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad’s counsel Richard Naidu’s application for temporarily halting the trial currently underway as he intends to file a permanent stay on proceedings in the High Court.
This comes as Magistrate Prasad has ordered FICAC to disclose two witness statements from Professor Prasad’s counsel.
The ruling was made after Naidu challenged the non-disclosure of the statements, which were recorded during an earlier investigation.
The court found that the statements exist and could assist the defence.
Magistrate Prasad has stressed that the prosecution has a duty to disclose all material information relating to the charges before trial.
He says this includes evidence the prosecution intends to rely on, as well as unused material that the prosecution possesses or considers could assist the defence.
Magistrate Prasad says there should be full disclosure and there cannot be a pick-and-choose approach to what material is disclosed.
The Magistrate accepted the investigator’s evidence that the decision not to use the two statements was based on relevance and that an investigator has discretion when gathering evidence during an investigation.
While rejecting Naidu’s application, Magistrate Prasad said that the trial is afoot and unless a High Court orders him, there is nothing stopping him from continuing the trial.
Naidu stressed that his application be put to record.
The trial then continued where the first witness, the Supervisor with the Registrar of Companies office in Suva, Manasa Talemaipapalagi told the court that on 19th February, 2016, Professor Prasad and Sunil Chand ceased being the directors of Platinum Hotel and Resorts Limited.
He says the documents were received by the Office on the 10th of May, 2016.
Meanwhile, Naidu objected to the admittance of these documents, stating that if Talemaipapalagi is not going to say how he got the Registrar of Companies then it is hearsay.
Magistrate Prasad allowed the documents to be admitted as facts, however, clarified that it is up to him what weight he gives to the documents.
The trial continues on Monday.
Prof. Prasad’s FICAC case put on hold as High Court to hear stay applicationBy Rashika Kumar 17/09/2026The Suva Magistrates Court has put the FICAC case against former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad on hold until Thursday, with the High Court scheduled to hear today an application seeking an interim stay of the proceedings.
FICAC lawyer Joseph Work says there is nothing preventing the Magistrates Court from continuing with the proceedings despite the application filed by Professor Prasad’s counsel Richard Naidu in the High Court.
He says the witnesses are still available and the prosecution can continue taking evidence.
Work acknowledges that an application has been filed in the High Court but says the Magistrates Court is not bound by the High Court proceedings at this stage.
Naidu submitted that it would be prudent for the Magistrates Court to wait for the High Court to consider the application before continuing with the proceedings.
The matter has been adjourned to Thursday morning for mention and further directions.
High Court to decide Monday whether FICAC case against Prof. Prasad will continueBy Mansi Chand 18/09/2026The Suva High Court will decide on Monday whether the FICAC case against former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad will continue or not after Professor Prasad’s lawyer, Richard Naidu made submissions stating that FICAC must face consequences for failure to disclose material that could assist the defence.
The defence is seeking a permanent stay of the proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court where Professor Prasad is charged with two offences relating to alleged non-disclosure in his 2015 statutory declaration while he was an office holder of the National Federation Party.
Naidu says FICAC deliberately withheld two NFP statements, as well as other statements which could have been relevant to the defence.
He says FICAC had failed in its fundamental responsibility to disclose relevant material and said there must be consequences for reckless conduct.
Naidu says consequences are necessary to provide an incentive for FICAC to change its behaviour.
He referred to evidence from FICAC Investigating Officer Asenaca Niumataiwalu, who agreed that material potentially helpful to the defence had been withheld.
Naidu says this is a case without precedent.
The defence lawyer says Niumataiwalu is not an unreliable witness.
Naidu also told the court that Professor Prasad is a parliamentarian and that General Eection could happen any time.
He argued that the alleged disclosure failures had already caused damage to his client.
Naidu says Professor Prasad’s constitutional rights had been breached and urged the court to grant a permanent stay.
Meanwhile, FICAC lawyer Joseph Work says the defence is unfamiliar of criminal procedures and there's abuse of process by them.
Work says they need to prove actual prejudice.
Justice Thushara Rajasinghe stressed that FICAC could have avoided unnecessary hearing and voir dire if they responded to the questions asked by defence.
Work further says this is the second attempt for stay proceedings.
The judgement will be delivered on Monday.
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.
Disputed FICAC document is not hearsay in Prof Prasad case - court rulesBy Alipate Narawa 17/09/2026The 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.
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.
Court to rule this afternoon on FICAC disclosure issue in Prof. Prasad's FICAC caseBy Rashika Kumar 17/09/2026The Suva Magistrates Court will deliver its ruling this afternoon after former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad’s counsel, Richard Naidu, asked whether FICAC has two more pieces of undisclosed evidence, whether they have been disclosed to the defence and, if not, the reason for this.
FICAC lawyer Joseph Work says the three questions raised by the defence have been answered through the evidence of Investigating Officer Asenaca Niumataiwalu.
Work says Niumataiwalu confirmed there were two investigation files concerning Professor Prasad, FEP 41/24 and FEP 89/25 where FEP 89/25 resulted in the current proceedings.
He says FEP 41/24 had been closed, while statements from National Federation Party officials Dalip Kumar and Kamal Iyer remained in that file.
Work says Niumataiwalu did not include the two statements in the investigation file for FEP 89/25 that was handed to FICAC's Legal Department because she did not consider them relevant to that investigation.
He says Niumataiwalu had stated that Tupou Draunidalo's statement was sufficient in relation to the relevant documents and the elements of the offences being investigated.
He says Niumataiwalu also confirmed that she was only aware of what she had provided to FICAC's Legal Department and not what was subsequently disclosed to the defence.
However, Naidu says two of the three questions remain unanswered.
He says the Investigating Officer confirmed that FICAC holds the statements but could not say whether they had been disclosed to the defence.
Naidu says Niumataiwalu made it clear that disclosure to the defence was not the responsibility of the investigation team.
He says if the investigating officer could not answer whether the statements had been disclosed to the defence, she also could not answer why they had not been disclosed.
Naidu says the defence is not concerned about how documents are disclosed internally within FICAC but whether relevant material was disclosed by FICAC to the defence.
Naidu says the answers to the three questions are necessary for the defence to advise Professor Prasad on what steps to take next.
He says the options could include seeking disclosure of the documents, waiving the right to them and continuing with the trial, or potentially seeking a permanent stay of proceedings from the High Court if the non-disclosure is considered sufficiently material.
Naidu further told the court that it now appeared other statements may also exist and questioned what other potentially relevant material could be contained in the closed FEP 41/24 file.
He says the issue is therefore no longer limited to the two statements because the defence does not know what other material may exist that could be relevant or assist Prasad's defence.
Naidu says the matter raises broader questions about FICAC's handling of potentially relevant evidence and its disclosure obligations.
He submitted that a prosecutor has a duty to the court which overrides the prosecutor's interest in the case and also has a fundamental duty to disclose relevant material, including material that may assist an accused person.
Naidu says somebody within FICAC has to take responsibility for the prosecution's disclosure obligations and, if those obligations have been breached, it could have consequences for the entire trial.
He further submitted that if potentially helpful information was withheld internally because an investigator considered it unreliable or irrelevant, this raised concerns about FICAC's approach to material that could assist an accused person.
Naidu says the defence has been fundamentally disadvantaged regardless of where within FICAC responsibility for any non-disclosure may lie.
He says disclosure at this stage may not necessarily resolve the issue because the trial has already progressed on the basis of the material previously disclosed.
Naidu says pre-trial conferences had already taken place and facts and documents had been agreed on the basis of the disclosure available to the defence at the time.
He says the defence may have approached those matters differently if all relevant material had been disclosed earlier and its trial strategy may also have been affected.
Naidu says until the defence knows what other material exists and the reasons for any non-disclosure, it cannot properly advise Professor Prasad on what steps he should take next.
He says if the court wants the unanswered questions resolved, FICAC should produce a person who can answer whether the documents were disclosed to the defence and, if they were not, explain why.
Naidu also requested a transcript of the earlier evidence so the defence could review it and advise Professor Prasad on the next steps.
Work objected to parts of Naidu's submissions, saying the defence was moving beyond the three questions that led to the inquiry and into issues that should be dealt with through the appropriate legal process.
He says if the defence wants to raise issues relating to a stay of proceedings or alleged misconduct, those matters should be dealt with in the appropriate forum.
Work says questions about why the investigating officer used material from another investigation can be put to her during the trial when she gives evidence about her investigation.
He maintains the three questions have been answered and says the trial needs to progress.
Work also told the court that FICAC would endeavour to provide the defence with the transcript and could provide the audio recording in the interim.
The court also heard that the statements of Kumar and Iyer formed part of FEP 41/24 and were not part of the investigation file for the current proceedings.
When the Magistrate Yogesh Prasad asked whether the defence wanted the statements disclosed, Naidu said they would receive them but added that the concern was what other material may exist.
Naidu accepted Work's offer to provide the audio recording of the proceedings from yesterday.
The Magistrate will deliver the ruling this afternoon.
Magistrate rejects Naidu’s application to temporarily halt Prof. Prasad’s FICAC trial pending High Court stay applicationBy Rashika Kumar 17/09/2026Suva Magistrate Yogesh Prasad has rejected former Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad’s counsel Richard Naidu’s application for temporarily halting the trial currently underway as he intends to file a permanent stay on proceedings in the High Court.
This comes as Magistrate Prasad has ordered FICAC to disclose two witness statements from Professor Prasad’s counsel.
The ruling was made after Naidu challenged the non-disclosure of the statements, which were recorded during an earlier investigation.
The court found that the statements exist and could assist the defence.
Magistrate Prasad has stressed that the prosecution has a duty to disclose all material information relating to the charges before trial.
He says this includes evidence the prosecution intends to rely on, as well as unused material that the prosecution possesses or considers could assist the defence.
Magistrate Prasad says there should be full disclosure and there cannot be a pick-and-choose approach to what material is disclosed.
The Magistrate accepted the investigator’s evidence that the decision not to use the two statements was based on relevance and that an investigator has discretion when gathering evidence during an investigation.
While rejecting Naidu’s application, Magistrate Prasad said that the trial is afoot and unless a High Court orders him, there is nothing stopping him from continuing the trial.
Naidu stressed that his application be put to record.
The trial then continued where the first witness, the Supervisor with the Registrar of Companies office in Suva, Manasa Talemaipapalagi told the court that on 19th February, 2016, Professor Prasad and Sunil Chand ceased being the directors of Platinum Hotel and Resorts Limited.
He says the documents were received by the Office on the 10th of May, 2016.
Meanwhile, Naidu objected to the admittance of these documents, stating that if Talemaipapalagi is not going to say how he got the Registrar of Companies then it is hearsay.
Magistrate Prasad allowed the documents to be admitted as facts, however, clarified that it is up to him what weight he gives to the documents.
The trial continues on Monday.
Prof. Prasad’s FICAC case put on hold as High Court to hear stay applicationBy Rashika Kumar 17/09/2026The Suva Magistrates Court has put the FICAC case against former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad on hold until Thursday, with the High Court scheduled to hear today an application seeking an interim stay of the proceedings.
FICAC lawyer Joseph Work says there is nothing preventing the Magistrates Court from continuing with the proceedings despite the application filed by Professor Prasad’s counsel Richard Naidu in the High Court.
He says the witnesses are still available and the prosecution can continue taking evidence.
Work acknowledges that an application has been filed in the High Court but says the Magistrates Court is not bound by the High Court proceedings at this stage.
Naidu submitted that it would be prudent for the Magistrates Court to wait for the High Court to consider the application before continuing with the proceedings.
The matter has been adjourned to Thursday morning for mention and further directions.
High Court to decide Monday whether FICAC case against Prof. Prasad will continueBy Mansi Chand 18/09/2026The Suva High Court will decide on Monday whether the FICAC case against former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad will continue or not after Professor Prasad’s lawyer, Richard Naidu made submissions stating that FICAC must face consequences for failure to disclose material that could assist the defence.
The defence is seeking a permanent stay of the proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court where Professor Prasad is charged with two offences relating to alleged non-disclosure in his 2015 statutory declaration while he was an office holder of the National Federation Party.
Naidu says FICAC deliberately withheld two NFP statements, as well as other statements which could have been relevant to the defence.
He says FICAC had failed in its fundamental responsibility to disclose relevant material and said there must be consequences for reckless conduct.
Naidu says consequences are necessary to provide an incentive for FICAC to change its behaviour.
He referred to evidence from FICAC Investigating Officer Asenaca Niumataiwalu, who agreed that material potentially helpful to the defence had been withheld.
Naidu says this is a case without precedent.
The defence lawyer says Niumataiwalu is not an unreliable witness.
Naidu also told the court that Professor Prasad is a parliamentarian and that General Eection could happen any time.
He argued that the alleged disclosure failures had already caused damage to his client.
Naidu says Professor Prasad’s constitutional rights had been breached and urged the court to grant a permanent stay.
Meanwhile, FICAC lawyer Joseph Work says the defence is unfamiliar of criminal procedures and there's abuse of process by them.
Work says they need to prove actual prejudice.
Justice Thushara Rajasinghe stressed that FICAC could have avoided unnecessary hearing and voir dire if they responded to the questions asked by defence.
Work further says this is the second attempt for stay proceedings.
The judgement will be delivered on Monday.
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.
Court to rule this afternoon on FICAC disclosure issue in Prof. Prasad's FICAC caseBy Rashika Kumar 17/09/2026The Suva Magistrates Court will deliver its ruling this afternoon after former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad’s counsel, Richard Naidu, asked whether FICAC has two more pieces of undisclosed evidence, whether they have been disclosed to the defence and, if not, the reason for this.
FICAC lawyer Joseph Work says the three questions raised by the defence have been answered through the evidence of Investigating Officer Asenaca Niumataiwalu.
Work says Niumataiwalu confirmed there were two investigation files concerning Professor Prasad, FEP 41/24 and FEP 89/25 where FEP 89/25 resulted in the current proceedings.
He says FEP 41/24 had been closed, while statements from National Federation Party officials Dalip Kumar and Kamal Iyer remained in that file.
Work says Niumataiwalu did not include the two statements in the investigation file for FEP 89/25 that was handed to FICAC's Legal Department because she did not consider them relevant to that investigation.
He says Niumataiwalu had stated that Tupou Draunidalo's statement was sufficient in relation to the relevant documents and the elements of the offences being investigated.
He says Niumataiwalu also confirmed that she was only aware of what she had provided to FICAC's Legal Department and not what was subsequently disclosed to the defence.
However, Naidu says two of the three questions remain unanswered.
He says the Investigating Officer confirmed that FICAC holds the statements but could not say whether they had been disclosed to the defence.
Naidu says Niumataiwalu made it clear that disclosure to the defence was not the responsibility of the investigation team.
He says if the investigating officer could not answer whether the statements had been disclosed to the defence, she also could not answer why they had not been disclosed.
Naidu says the defence is not concerned about how documents are disclosed internally within FICAC but whether relevant material was disclosed by FICAC to the defence.
Naidu says the answers to the three questions are necessary for the defence to advise Professor Prasad on what steps to take next.
He says the options could include seeking disclosure of the documents, waiving the right to them and continuing with the trial, or potentially seeking a permanent stay of proceedings from the High Court if the non-disclosure is considered sufficiently material.
Naidu further told the court that it now appeared other statements may also exist and questioned what other potentially relevant material could be contained in the closed FEP 41/24 file.
He says the issue is therefore no longer limited to the two statements because the defence does not know what other material may exist that could be relevant or assist Prasad's defence.
Naidu says the matter raises broader questions about FICAC's handling of potentially relevant evidence and its disclosure obligations.
He submitted that a prosecutor has a duty to the court which overrides the prosecutor's interest in the case and also has a fundamental duty to disclose relevant material, including material that may assist an accused person.
Naidu says somebody within FICAC has to take responsibility for the prosecution's disclosure obligations and, if those obligations have been breached, it could have consequences for the entire trial.
He further submitted that if potentially helpful information was withheld internally because an investigator considered it unreliable or irrelevant, this raised concerns about FICAC's approach to material that could assist an accused person.
Naidu says the defence has been fundamentally disadvantaged regardless of where within FICAC responsibility for any non-disclosure may lie.
He says disclosure at this stage may not necessarily resolve the issue because the trial has already progressed on the basis of the material previously disclosed.
Naidu says pre-trial conferences had already taken place and facts and documents had been agreed on the basis of the disclosure available to the defence at the time.
He says the defence may have approached those matters differently if all relevant material had been disclosed earlier and its trial strategy may also have been affected.
Naidu says until the defence knows what other material exists and the reasons for any non-disclosure, it cannot properly advise Professor Prasad on what steps he should take next.
He says if the court wants the unanswered questions resolved, FICAC should produce a person who can answer whether the documents were disclosed to the defence and, if they were not, explain why.
Naidu also requested a transcript of the earlier evidence so the defence could review it and advise Professor Prasad on the next steps.
Work objected to parts of Naidu's submissions, saying the defence was moving beyond the three questions that led to the inquiry and into issues that should be dealt with through the appropriate legal process.
He says if the defence wants to raise issues relating to a stay of proceedings or alleged misconduct, those matters should be dealt with in the appropriate forum.
Work says questions about why the investigating officer used material from another investigation can be put to her during the trial when she gives evidence about her investigation.
He maintains the three questions have been answered and says the trial needs to progress.
Work also told the court that FICAC would endeavour to provide the defence with the transcript and could provide the audio recording in the interim.
The court also heard that the statements of Kumar and Iyer formed part of FEP 41/24 and were not part of the investigation file for the current proceedings.
When the Magistrate Yogesh Prasad asked whether the defence wanted the statements disclosed, Naidu said they would receive them but added that the concern was what other material may exist.
Naidu accepted Work's offer to provide the audio recording of the proceedings from yesterday.
The Magistrate will deliver the ruling this afternoon.
Magistrate rejects Naidu’s application to temporarily halt Prof. Prasad’s FICAC trial pending High Court stay applicationBy Rashika Kumar 17/09/2026Suva Magistrate Yogesh Prasad has rejected former Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad’s counsel Richard Naidu’s application for temporarily halting the trial currently underway as he intends to file a permanent stay on proceedings in the High Court.
This comes as Magistrate Prasad has ordered FICAC to disclose two witness statements from Professor Prasad’s counsel.
The ruling was made after Naidu challenged the non-disclosure of the statements, which were recorded during an earlier investigation.
The court found that the statements exist and could assist the defence.
Magistrate Prasad has stressed that the prosecution has a duty to disclose all material information relating to the charges before trial.
He says this includes evidence the prosecution intends to rely on, as well as unused material that the prosecution possesses or considers could assist the defence.
Magistrate Prasad says there should be full disclosure and there cannot be a pick-and-choose approach to what material is disclosed.
The Magistrate accepted the investigator’s evidence that the decision not to use the two statements was based on relevance and that an investigator has discretion when gathering evidence during an investigation.
While rejecting Naidu’s application, Magistrate Prasad said that the trial is afoot and unless a High Court orders him, there is nothing stopping him from continuing the trial.
Naidu stressed that his application be put to record.
The trial then continued where the first witness, the Supervisor with the Registrar of Companies office in Suva, Manasa Talemaipapalagi told the court that on 19th February, 2016, Professor Prasad and Sunil Chand ceased being the directors of Platinum Hotel and Resorts Limited.
He says the documents were received by the Office on the 10th of May, 2016.
Meanwhile, Naidu objected to the admittance of these documents, stating that if Talemaipapalagi is not going to say how he got the Registrar of Companies then it is hearsay.
Magistrate Prasad allowed the documents to be admitted as facts, however, clarified that it is up to him what weight he gives to the documents.
The trial continues on Monday.
Prof. Prasad’s FICAC case put on hold as High Court to hear stay applicationBy Rashika Kumar 17/09/2026The Suva Magistrates Court has put the FICAC case against former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad on hold until Thursday, with the High Court scheduled to hear today an application seeking an interim stay of the proceedings.
FICAC lawyer Joseph Work says there is nothing preventing the Magistrates Court from continuing with the proceedings despite the application filed by Professor Prasad’s counsel Richard Naidu in the High Court.
He says the witnesses are still available and the prosecution can continue taking evidence.
Work acknowledges that an application has been filed in the High Court but says the Magistrates Court is not bound by the High Court proceedings at this stage.
Naidu submitted that it would be prudent for the Magistrates Court to wait for the High Court to consider the application before continuing with the proceedings.
The matter has been adjourned to Thursday morning for mention and further directions.
High Court to decide Monday whether FICAC case against Prof. Prasad will continueBy Mansi Chand 18/09/2026The Suva High Court will decide on Monday whether the FICAC case against former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad will continue or not after Professor Prasad’s lawyer, Richard Naidu made submissions stating that FICAC must face consequences for failure to disclose material that could assist the defence.
The defence is seeking a permanent stay of the proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court where Professor Prasad is charged with two offences relating to alleged non-disclosure in his 2015 statutory declaration while he was an office holder of the National Federation Party.
Naidu says FICAC deliberately withheld two NFP statements, as well as other statements which could have been relevant to the defence.
He says FICAC had failed in its fundamental responsibility to disclose relevant material and said there must be consequences for reckless conduct.
Naidu says consequences are necessary to provide an incentive for FICAC to change its behaviour.
He referred to evidence from FICAC Investigating Officer Asenaca Niumataiwalu, who agreed that material potentially helpful to the defence had been withheld.
Naidu says this is a case without precedent.
The defence lawyer says Niumataiwalu is not an unreliable witness.
Naidu also told the court that Professor Prasad is a parliamentarian and that General Eection could happen any time.
He argued that the alleged disclosure failures had already caused damage to his client.
Naidu says Professor Prasad’s constitutional rights had been breached and urged the court to grant a permanent stay.
Meanwhile, FICAC lawyer Joseph Work says the defence is unfamiliar of criminal procedures and there's abuse of process by them.
Work says they need to prove actual prejudice.
Justice Thushara Rajasinghe stressed that FICAC could have avoided unnecessary hearing and voir dire if they responded to the questions asked by defence.
Work further says this is the second attempt for stay proceedings.
The judgement will be delivered on Monday.
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.
Court to rule this afternoon on FICAC disclosure issue in Prof. Prasad's FICAC caseBy Rashika Kumar 17/09/2026The Suva Magistrates Court will deliver its ruling this afternoon after former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad’s counsel, Richard Naidu, asked whether FICAC has two more pieces of undisclosed evidence, whether they have been disclosed to the defence and, if not, the reason for this.
FICAC lawyer Joseph Work says the three questions raised by the defence have been answered through the evidence of Investigating Officer Asenaca Niumataiwalu.
Work says Niumataiwalu confirmed there were two investigation files concerning Professor Prasad, FEP 41/24 and FEP 89/25 where FEP 89/25 resulted in the current proceedings.
He says FEP 41/24 had been closed, while statements from National Federation Party officials Dalip Kumar and Kamal Iyer remained in that file.
Work says Niumataiwalu did not include the two statements in the investigation file for FEP 89/25 that was handed to FICAC's Legal Department because she did not consider them relevant to that investigation.
He says Niumataiwalu had stated that Tupou Draunidalo's statement was sufficient in relation to the relevant documents and the elements of the offences being investigated.
He says Niumataiwalu also confirmed that she was only aware of what she had provided to FICAC's Legal Department and not what was subsequently disclosed to the defence.
However, Naidu says two of the three questions remain unanswered.
He says the Investigating Officer confirmed that FICAC holds the statements but could not say whether they had been disclosed to the defence.
Naidu says Niumataiwalu made it clear that disclosure to the defence was not the responsibility of the investigation team.
He says if the investigating officer could not answer whether the statements had been disclosed to the defence, she also could not answer why they had not been disclosed.
Naidu says the defence is not concerned about how documents are disclosed internally within FICAC but whether relevant material was disclosed by FICAC to the defence.
Naidu says the answers to the three questions are necessary for the defence to advise Professor Prasad on what steps to take next.
He says the options could include seeking disclosure of the documents, waiving the right to them and continuing with the trial, or potentially seeking a permanent stay of proceedings from the High Court if the non-disclosure is considered sufficiently material.
Naidu further told the court that it now appeared other statements may also exist and questioned what other potentially relevant material could be contained in the closed FEP 41/24 file.
He says the issue is therefore no longer limited to the two statements because the defence does not know what other material may exist that could be relevant or assist Prasad's defence.
Naidu says the matter raises broader questions about FICAC's handling of potentially relevant evidence and its disclosure obligations.
He submitted that a prosecutor has a duty to the court which overrides the prosecutor's interest in the case and also has a fundamental duty to disclose relevant material, including material that may assist an accused person.
Naidu says somebody within FICAC has to take responsibility for the prosecution's disclosure obligations and, if those obligations have been breached, it could have consequences for the entire trial.
He further submitted that if potentially helpful information was withheld internally because an investigator considered it unreliable or irrelevant, this raised concerns about FICAC's approach to material that could assist an accused person.
Naidu says the defence has been fundamentally disadvantaged regardless of where within FICAC responsibility for any non-disclosure may lie.
He says disclosure at this stage may not necessarily resolve the issue because the trial has already progressed on the basis of the material previously disclosed.
Naidu says pre-trial conferences had already taken place and facts and documents had been agreed on the basis of the disclosure available to the defence at the time.
He says the defence may have approached those matters differently if all relevant material had been disclosed earlier and its trial strategy may also have been affected.
Naidu says until the defence knows what other material exists and the reasons for any non-disclosure, it cannot properly advise Professor Prasad on what steps he should take next.
He says if the court wants the unanswered questions resolved, FICAC should produce a person who can answer whether the documents were disclosed to the defence and, if they were not, explain why.
Naidu also requested a transcript of the earlier evidence so the defence could review it and advise Professor Prasad on the next steps.
Work objected to parts of Naidu's submissions, saying the defence was moving beyond the three questions that led to the inquiry and into issues that should be dealt with through the appropriate legal process.
He says if the defence wants to raise issues relating to a stay of proceedings or alleged misconduct, those matters should be dealt with in the appropriate forum.
Work says questions about why the investigating officer used material from another investigation can be put to her during the trial when she gives evidence about her investigation.
He maintains the three questions have been answered and says the trial needs to progress.
Work also told the court that FICAC would endeavour to provide the defence with the transcript and could provide the audio recording in the interim.
The court also heard that the statements of Kumar and Iyer formed part of FEP 41/24 and were not part of the investigation file for the current proceedings.
When the Magistrate Yogesh Prasad asked whether the defence wanted the statements disclosed, Naidu said they would receive them but added that the concern was what other material may exist.
Naidu accepted Work's offer to provide the audio recording of the proceedings from yesterday.
The Magistrate will deliver the ruling this afternoon.
Magistrate rejects Naidu’s application to temporarily halt Prof. Prasad’s FICAC trial pending High Court stay applicationBy Rashika Kumar 17/09/2026Suva Magistrate Yogesh Prasad has rejected former Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad’s counsel Richard Naidu’s application for temporarily halting the trial currently underway as he intends to file a permanent stay on proceedings in the High Court.
This comes as Magistrate Prasad has ordered FICAC to disclose two witness statements from Professor Prasad’s counsel.
The ruling was made after Naidu challenged the non-disclosure of the statements, which were recorded during an earlier investigation.
The court found that the statements exist and could assist the defence.
Magistrate Prasad has stressed that the prosecution has a duty to disclose all material information relating to the charges before trial.
He says this includes evidence the prosecution intends to rely on, as well as unused material that the prosecution possesses or considers could assist the defence.
Magistrate Prasad says there should be full disclosure and there cannot be a pick-and-choose approach to what material is disclosed.
The Magistrate accepted the investigator’s evidence that the decision not to use the two statements was based on relevance and that an investigator has discretion when gathering evidence during an investigation.
While rejecting Naidu’s application, Magistrate Prasad said that the trial is afoot and unless a High Court orders him, there is nothing stopping him from continuing the trial.
Naidu stressed that his application be put to record.
The trial then continued where the first witness, the Supervisor with the Registrar of Companies office in Suva, Manasa Talemaipapalagi told the court that on 19th February, 2016, Professor Prasad and Sunil Chand ceased being the directors of Platinum Hotel and Resorts Limited.
He says the documents were received by the Office on the 10th of May, 2016.
Meanwhile, Naidu objected to the admittance of these documents, stating that if Talemaipapalagi is not going to say how he got the Registrar of Companies then it is hearsay.
Magistrate Prasad allowed the documents to be admitted as facts, however, clarified that it is up to him what weight he gives to the documents.
The trial continues on Monday.
Prof. Prasad’s FICAC case put on hold as High Court to hear stay applicationBy Rashika Kumar 17/09/2026The Suva Magistrates Court has put the FICAC case against former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad on hold until Thursday, with the High Court scheduled to hear today an application seeking an interim stay of the proceedings.
FICAC lawyer Joseph Work says there is nothing preventing the Magistrates Court from continuing with the proceedings despite the application filed by Professor Prasad’s counsel Richard Naidu in the High Court.
He says the witnesses are still available and the prosecution can continue taking evidence.
Work acknowledges that an application has been filed in the High Court but says the Magistrates Court is not bound by the High Court proceedings at this stage.
Naidu submitted that it would be prudent for the Magistrates Court to wait for the High Court to consider the application before continuing with the proceedings.
The matter has been adjourned to Thursday morning for mention and further directions.
High Court to decide Monday whether FICAC case against Prof. Prasad will continueBy Mansi Chand 18/09/2026The Suva High Court will decide on Monday whether the FICAC case against former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad will continue or not after Professor Prasad’s lawyer, Richard Naidu made submissions stating that FICAC must face consequences for failure to disclose material that could assist the defence.
The defence is seeking a permanent stay of the proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court where Professor Prasad is charged with two offences relating to alleged non-disclosure in his 2015 statutory declaration while he was an office holder of the National Federation Party.
Naidu says FICAC deliberately withheld two NFP statements, as well as other statements which could have been relevant to the defence.
He says FICAC had failed in its fundamental responsibility to disclose relevant material and said there must be consequences for reckless conduct.
Naidu says consequences are necessary to provide an incentive for FICAC to change its behaviour.
He referred to evidence from FICAC Investigating Officer Asenaca Niumataiwalu, who agreed that material potentially helpful to the defence had been withheld.
Naidu says this is a case without precedent.
The defence lawyer says Niumataiwalu is not an unreliable witness.
Naidu also told the court that Professor Prasad is a parliamentarian and that General Eection could happen any time.
He argued that the alleged disclosure failures had already caused damage to his client.
Naidu says Professor Prasad’s constitutional rights had been breached and urged the court to grant a permanent stay.
Meanwhile, FICAC lawyer Joseph Work says the defence is unfamiliar of criminal procedures and there's abuse of process by them.
Work says they need to prove actual prejudice.
Justice Thushara Rajasinghe stressed that FICAC could have avoided unnecessary hearing and voir dire if they responded to the questions asked by defence.
Work further says this is the second attempt for stay proceedings.
The judgement will be delivered on Monday.
Naidu further told the court that it now appeared other statements may also exist and questioned what other potentially relevant material could be contained in the closed FEP 41/24 file.
He says the issue is therefore no longer limited to the two statements because the defence does not know what other material may exist that could be relevant or assist Prasad's defence.
Naidu says the matter raises broader questions about FICAC's handling of potentially relevant evidence and its disclosure obligations.
He submitted that a prosecutor has a duty to the court which overrides the prosecutor's interest in the case and also has a fundamental duty to disclose relevant material, including material that may assist an accused person.
Naidu says somebody within FICAC has to take responsibility for the prosecution's disclosure obligations and, if those obligations have been breached, it could have consequences for the entire trial.
He further submitted that if potentially helpful information was withheld internally because an investigator considered it unreliable or irrelevant, this raised concerns about FICAC's approach to material that could assist an accused person.
Naidu says the defence has been fundamentally disadvantaged regardless of where within FICAC responsibility for any non-disclosure may lie.
He says disclosure at this stage may not necessarily resolve the issue because the trial has already progressed on the basis of the material previously disclosed.
Naidu says pre-trial conferences had already taken place and facts and documents had been agreed on the basis of the disclosure available to the defence at the time.
He says the defence may have approached those matters differently if all relevant material had been disclosed earlier and its trial strategy may also have been affected.
Suva Magistrate Yogesh Prasad has rejected former Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad’s counsel Richard Naidu’s application for temporarily halting the trial currently underway as he intends to file a permanent stay on proceedings in the High Court. This comes as Magistrate Prasad has ordered FICAC to disclose two witness statements from Professor Prasad’s counsel. The ruling was made after Naidu challenged the non-disclosure of the statements, which were recorded during an earlier investigation. The court found that the statements exist and could assist the defence. Magistrate Prasad has stressed that the prosecution has a duty to disclose all material information relating to the charges before trial. He says this includes evidence the prosecution intends to rely on, as well as unused material that the prosecution possesses or considers could assist the defence. Magistrate Prasad says there should be full disclosure and there cannot be a pick-and-choose approach to what material is disclosed. The Magistrate accepted the investigator’s evidence that the decision not to use the two statements was based on relevance and that an investigator has discretion when gathering evidence during an investigation. While rejecting Naidu’s application, Magistrate Prasad said that the trial is afoot and unless a High Court orders him, there is nothing stopping him from continuing the trial. Naidu stressed that his application be put to record.
The trial then continued where the first witness, the Supervisor with the Registrar of Companies office in Suva, Manasa Talemaipapalagi told the court that on 19th February, 2016, Professor Prasad and Sunil Chand ceased being the directors of Platinum Hotel and Resorts Limited.
He says the documents were received by the Office on the 10th of May, 2016.
Meanwhile, Naidu objected to the admittance of these documents, stating that if Talemaipapalagi is not going to say how he got the Registrar of Companies then it is hearsay.
Magistrate Prasad allowed the documents to be admitted as facts, however, clarified that it is up to him what weight he gives to the documents.
The trial continues on Monday.
Prof. Prasad’s FICAC case put on hold as High Court to hear stay applicationBy Rashika Kumar 17/09/2026The Suva Magistrates Court has put the FICAC case against former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad on hold until Thursday, with the High Court scheduled to hear today an application seeking an interim stay of the proceedings.
FICAC lawyer Joseph Work says there is nothing preventing the Magistrates Court from continuing with the proceedings despite the application filed by Professor Prasad’s counsel Richard Naidu in the High Court.
He says the witnesses are still available and the prosecution can continue taking evidence.
Work acknowledges that an application has been filed in the High Court but says the Magistrates Court is not bound by the High Court proceedings at this stage.
Naidu submitted that it would be prudent for the Magistrates Court to wait for the High Court to consider the application before continuing with the proceedings.
The matter has been adjourned to Thursday morning for mention and further directions.
High Court to decide Monday whether FICAC case against Prof. Prasad will continueBy Mansi Chand 18/09/2026The Suva High Court will decide on Monday whether the FICAC case against former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad will continue or not after Professor Prasad’s lawyer, Richard Naidu made submissions stating that FICAC must face consequences for failure to disclose material that could assist the defence.
The defence is seeking a permanent stay of the proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court where Professor Prasad is charged with two offences relating to alleged non-disclosure in his 2015 statutory declaration while he was an office holder of the National Federation Party.
Naidu says FICAC deliberately withheld two NFP statements, as well as other statements which could have been relevant to the defence.
He says FICAC had failed in its fundamental responsibility to disclose relevant material and said there must be consequences for reckless conduct.
Naidu says consequences are necessary to provide an incentive for FICAC to change its behaviour.
He referred to evidence from FICAC Investigating Officer Asenaca Niumataiwalu, who agreed that material potentially helpful to the defence had been withheld.
Naidu says this is a case without precedent.
The defence lawyer says Niumataiwalu is not an unreliable witness.
Naidu also told the court that Professor Prasad is a parliamentarian and that General Eection could happen any time.
He argued that the alleged disclosure failures had already caused damage to his client.
Naidu says Professor Prasad’s constitutional rights had been breached and urged the court to grant a permanent stay.
Meanwhile, FICAC lawyer Joseph Work says the defence is unfamiliar of criminal procedures and there's abuse of process by them.
Work says they need to prove actual prejudice.
Justice Thushara Rajasinghe stressed that FICAC could have avoided unnecessary hearing and voir dire if they responded to the questions asked by defence.
Work further says this is the second attempt for stay proceedings.
The judgement will be delivered on Monday.
