Fiji’s former Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama has asked the Magistrates Court to remove Assistant DPP Laisani Tabuakuro from prosecuting his case, alleging bias and conflict of interest — a claim Tabuakuro has dismissed as baseless, and argued that the matter should be dealt with by the High Court.
In an affidavit filed in the Magistrates Court, Bainimarama stated he had no confidence in Tabuakuro’s ability to act fairly as State Counsel. He alleged that she held a personal vendetta against members of the former FijiFirst government, under which he served.
Bainimarama also questioned the legality of her position, stating that her previous contract was not renewed by the reinstated DPP Christopher Pryde. He argued that Pryde, whom he recognised as the lawful DPP, had also cleared him of any wrongdoing via an independent tribunal.
The former PM further criticised Tabuakuro’s application to transfer the case to the High Court, describing it as prejudicial to the defence. He insisted that both his charge and that of his co-accused, former Police Commissioner Sitiveni Qiliho, are indictable but triable summarily – matters which, he said, had been rightfully elected to be heard in the Magistrates Court.
“Against our rights and wishes, this application is being made by State Counsel,” Bainimarama said. “This will cause us a great deal of delay. We will also incur substantial legal costs as we are not earning at present.”
He also insisted that section 100(7) of the Constitution empowers the Magistrates Court to deal with constitutional interpretation issues.
“I believe that Pryde, as the DPP, was of the opinion that Tabuakuro was not fit to be a prosecutor,” Bainimarama said.
Assistant DPP Tabuakuro declined to respond in detail to the affidavit, saying it had no legal basis. She maintained that the Magistrates Court does not have jurisdiction to hear a recusal motion and that the High Court must determine such matters.
“I will not recuse myself from this case,” she stated.
The matter was heard by Resident Magistrate Sangeeth Somaratne, who stated that a ruling on the recusal application would be delivered at a later date.
