The Suva High Court has refused an application by former Deputy Prime Minister Manoa Kamikamica to permanently halt criminal proceedings against him, ruling that the case must proceed to trial.
Kamikamica is charged with perjury, alongside an alternative count of providing false information to a public servant.
The charges stem from evidence he gave under oath during a Commission of Inquiry into the appointment of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption Commissioner.
It is alleged that between December 2024 and March 2025, Kamikamica falsely stated he had no involvement in the appointment of former FICAC Commissioner Barbara Malimali, despite allegedly knowing the statement was untrue.
In his application, Kamikamica sought a permanent stay of proceedings and legal costs.
He argued that the signing of charges by Acting FICAC Commissioner Lavi Rokoika constituted an abuse of process intended to damage his reputation and political career.
He further contended there was insufficient evidence linking him to the appointment or showing that he misled the Commission of Inquiry.
The application specifically challenged the authority of Acting Commissioner Rokoika, claiming her appointment was legally defective because the Judicial Services Commission was not involved.
However, the court found that as Rokoika continues to function in the role, her actions remain valid under the “de facto officer doctrine” unless overturned by a competent court through judicial review.
Justice Sianiu Bull also rejected claims of an abuse of process.
While acknowledging concerns about a potential conflict of interest – given Rokoika’s previous role as legal counsel for a key witness, former Fisheries Minister Kalaveti Ravu – Justice Bull found no evidence of bad faith or manipulation.
The ruling suggested any perceived conflict could be addressed by appointing an independent prosecutor rather than halting the case entirely.
Kamikamica’s third ground, alleging a complete lack of evidence, was also dismissed.
The court ruled the claim did not meet the threshold required to terminate a prosecution before trial, concluding that the applicant failed to establish any legal grounds necessary for a permanent stay.
