News
Justice Bull Dismisses Prasad Stay Application
Posted by Media Team 18 May 2026
The Suva High Court has dismissed the application for a Permanent Stay of Criminal Proceedings filed by former Deputy Prime Minister Professor Biman Prasad in relation to charges instituted against him by the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC).
Justice Siainiu Fa’alogo Bull delivered the ruling on 18 May 2026, finding that the application did not satisfy the legal threshold required for the granting of a permanent stay.
The first ground advanced by the applicant alleged an abuse of process concerning the appointment of FICAC Acting Commissioner Ms Lavi Rokoika, contending that she lacked the legal authority to institute charges against Mr Prasad.
In her ruling, Justice Bull stated that the evidence before the Court established that Ms Rokoika was appointed Acting Commissioner of FICAC by the President, and that the validity of her appointment had not been determined by any court of law.
Justice Bull further stated that any challenge to the validity of the appointment must be pursued by way of judicial review in the civil jurisdiction.
The Court held that the applicant had failed to discharge the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that Ms Rokoika knew or ought to have known that her appointment was unlawful. Justice Bull noted that since 29 May 2025, Ms Rokoika had continuously acted in the office to which she was appointed.
Justice Bull further observed that Ms Rokoika had performed, and continues to perform, the functions of Acting Commissioner, and that all relevant persons regarded her as occupying that office.
According to Justice Bull, Ms Rokoika therefore became the de facto Acting Commissioner, regardless of whether she was eligible, whether her appointment was defective, or even if she were considered a usurper.
The Court stated that, pursuant to the de facto officer doctrine, all acts and functions performed and authorised by Ms Rokoika in office, including the signing of documents, charges, and information instituting the proceedings, were validly undertaken irrespective of the validity of her appointment.
On the second ground concerning prejudicial pre-charge delay, the applicant argued that the alleged offending occurred on 30 December 2015, while the charges were not laid until October 2025, a period of nearly ten years.
Justice Bull held that none of the circumstances relied upon by the applicant, whether individually or collectively, justified the Court taking the exceptional step of permanently staying the proceedings.
While acknowledging that the delay of ten years was significant, Justice Bull stated that delay alone, without more, was insufficient to warrant the exceptional remedy of a permanent stay of criminal proceedings.
Her Ladyship further noted that Section 2 of the FICAC Act clearly empowers FICAC to investigate and prosecute offences irrespective of when they occurred.
On the argument that the charges were foredoomed to fail, the applicant contended that he was not an “office holder” as defined under Section 2 of the Political Parties Act and therefore did not fall within an essential element of the alleged offences.
Justice Bull stated that it is well established that the merits of a charge are matters to be determined at trial and not within an application for a stay of proceedings.
The applicant also alleged that the respondent acted in bad faith by initiating charges without first conducting a caution interview.
In response, Justice Bull stated that no legal authority had been presented to support the proposition that an accused person must be interviewed under caution prior to being charged.
The Court noted submissions made by FICAC Counsel in the Magistrates Court that the applicant had been overseas during the relevant period.
Justice Bull acknowledged that while a caution interview may form an important aspect of an investigation, the absence of such an interview did not demonstrate any prejudice to the applicant’s right to a fair trial.
Her Ladyship further observed that an accused person who is cautioned and interviewed but elects to exercise the right to remain silent is effectively in a similar position, and it cannot be said that the absence of a statement prejudices the fairness of the proceedings.
Justice Bull concluded that none of the grounds advanced in support of the application succeeded, and accordingly dismissed the application for a Permanent Stay of Criminal Proceedings.
Mr. Prasad is charged by the FICAC with one count of Failure to Comply with Statutory Disclosure Requirements as it is alleged that on or about 30 December 2015, being an office holder of a registered political party, the National Federation Party, he failed to comply with Section 24(1)(b)(iv) of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013 by omitting to declare his annual declaration of assets, liabilities and income submitted to the Registrar of Political Parties of his directorship in Platinum Hotels & Resorts PTE Limited.
The accused is also charged with an alternative count of Providing False Information in a Statutory Declaration, whereby on or about 30 December 2015, being an office holder of the same party, he provided false information in a statutory declaration submitted to the Registrar of Political Parties in that he failed to declare his directorship in Platinum Hotels & Resorts PTE Limited, which the omission rendered the declaration false in material particular, thereby committing an offence.
