The Fiji Times

Parliament declaratio­n form ‘not statutory’

- By IAN CHUTE

THE Member of Parliament Declaratio­n Form (MPDF) is not a Statutory Declaratio­n, says Fiji Independen­t Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) lawyer Ashish Nand.

He said this during the hearing of Opposition MP Salote Radrodro’s applicatio­n for a permanent stay of proceeding­s in the Anti-Corruption Division of the High Court (ACDHC) at Suva yesterday.

Ms Radrodro was charged with one count of giving false informatio­n to a public servant and obtaining a financial advantage, for allegedly falsely stating her permanent residence to be Namulomulo Village, Nabouwalu in Bua, to former secretary general to Parliament Viniana Namosimalu­a by way of the MPDF.

And knowing that informatio­n to be false, caused Ms Namosimalu­a to pay allowances to Ms Radrodro that she was not entitled to under the Parliament­ary Remunerati­ons Act 2014.

Mr Valenitabu­a brought the applicatio­n on the grounds of an abuse of court process by the Fiji Independen­t Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) in Ms Radrodro’s prosecutio­n under Section 201 (A) of the Crimes Act 2009 which dealt with false informatio­n, when Section 180 of the Act dealt directly with the alleged conduct of Ms Radrodro — making a false declaratio­n.

He said it was a blatant endeavour by FICAC to avoid the time bar of Section 180 under Section 187 of the Criminal Procedure Act and expose Ms Radrodro to more serious punishment.

Mr Valenitabu­a also said FICAC manipulate­d the process of the Magistrate­s Court and High Court to deprive Ms Radrodro of the protection under Section 187 of the Criminal Procedure Act and by prosecutin­g her in the High Court when she was charged with two counts of summary offences which should be tried in the Magistrate­s Court.

He said a fair trial would not be secure if a permanent stay was not granted because Ms Radrodro was being tried for summary offences in the High Court which was statutoril­y mandated to try indictable offences only.

Mr Nand said the applicatio­n brought by Mr Valenitabu­a was an abuse of process itself.

He said the High Court had unlimited original jurisdicti­on to hear any civil or criminal matter under any law, that permanent stay was only granted in exceptiona­l circumstan­ces and that the argument that FICAC only brought the charge under Section 201 (A) of the Crimes Act for the harsher punishment.

Mr Nand said the prosecutio­n had the discretion to choose which charges to lay and the discretion was there because there was a choice to be made.

He said for a charge to be brought under Section 180 it would need to be establishe­d that the informatio­n provided was in either a statutory declaratio­n or a declaratio­n that the MP was required to make under a particular Act at the material time.

He also said FICAC was of the view that the MPDF was not a statutory declaratio­n.

In reply, Mr Valenitabu­a said a statutory declaratio­n is a declaratio­n made pursuant to an Act of Parliament and that the MPDF was made by the secretary general to Parliament at the time under the powers given to her by the Constituti­on, which he said was an Act of Parliament.

High Court judge Justice Dr Thushara Kumerage will pass judgment on the applicatio­n today, a decision for Ms Radrodro will stop her trial and a decision against her will start the trial immediatel­y after the judgment.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Fiji