Appeal goes to Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has been told that findings of the Court of Appeal against a former Board director of the then Native Land Trust Board (now TLTB) contradicted the evidence presented in the trial court.

Lawyer Maria Cole was making submissions on behalf of her client Keni Dakuidreketi, who is appealing against his conviction and sentence.

Dakuidreketi had appealed to the Appeal’s Court, but the case was dismissed on September 14, 2017. He was sentenced to six years in jail with a non-parole period of five years on August 15, 2014, in the High Court after he was convicted on five counts of abuse of office.

Dakuidreketi was found to have facilitated the approval of loans to PacificConnex Limited (PCX) from Vanua Development Corporation Limited (VDCL). He was also found to have signed loan agreements, deeds of assignments, charge documents and cheques either on behalf of VDCL or PCX without disclosing PCX’s true and accurate financial status either to the Boards of NLTB or VDCL. VDCL was the commercial arm of NLTB and was created to engage in the facilitation of investing NLTB funds.

It was concluded by the trial court that Dakuidreketi’s acts were arbitrary and it amounted to abuse of authority of public office that he held to secure gains to PCX while depriving the rights of NLTB and Indigenous Fijians. In her submissions, Ms Cole said the Court of Appeal had concluded that the 14 NLTB board papers and meetings from May 6, 2004, to August 24, 2006, had no mention of the meetings about VDCL’s loans to PCX or the use of the $1 million 2005 Government grant as security for extension of PCX’s loan with Dominion Finance.

She said they ruled that the board minutes did not show PCX’s overdraft/loan facility with ANZ Bank or PCX’s financial problems or PCX’s loans with financial institutions or Banks or PCX being unable to pay its overdraft facility with ANZ.

Ms Cole submitted that the Court of Appeal based its decision on a misunderstanding of the evidence, which was the basis of their appeal. She said the 2005 Board papers showed VDCL approved a shareholder loan of $2.9 million to PCX at the interest rate of nine per cent. She said information had been provided to the NLTB Board about a difficulty that PCX was experiencing in the process of obtaining business from the civil service and the public sector generally.

PCX stated that the product it was selling was expensive and it informed NLTB that while sales had not progressed as earlier expected there was optimism for the second part of the year.

“This painted to the board a picture of PCX,” Ms Cole said.

She said that was information which the Court of Appeal was unaware of and that it was provided to the NLTB Board.

Ms Cole said it was impossible for Dakuidreketi to disclose information that he was unaware of and that the Court of Appeal made a mistake by not looking at the evidence by itself, adding that it would have reached a completely different conclusion if it did.

Co-counsel Wylie Clarke submitted that his client’s sentence stood out like a sore thumb. He said there had never been an allegation of personal gain against Dakuidreketi and more serious cases had attracted a sentence of four years imprisonment.

Mr Clarke said his client’s sentence was extreme and there had been a substantial injustice because of his excessive sentence. FICAC lawyer Michael Blanchflower submitted that no one had questioned the validity of Dakuidreketi’s appointment and that evidence proved that the NLTB board had made the appointment. He said Dakuidreketi was not found guilty on the basis that he had failed to provide information. However, he was convicted for facilitation which was the undisputed arbitrary act. Mr Blanchflower said the Supreme Court was not a trial sentencing court.

He said the trial judge was aware of the seriousness of the case and each case was decided on its own facts.

He said even though Dakuidreketi’s sentence may seem high or severe it was within sentencing discretion.

Mr Blanchflower said the Court of Appeal did not find his sentence excessive, rather it was satisfied that there was a consistency in the sentencing principle.

The decision of the Supreme Court will be delivered on notice. Dakuidreketi has served three years and nine months of his six-year sentence.

Edited by Epineri Vula