FICAC v Jashwant Kumar: Defense Lays it’s case

FICAC v Jashwant Kumar: Defense Lays it’s case

The former Nasinu Town Council Clerk Jashwant Kumar took the stand to answer to charges brought against him by the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption in the Suva High Court before Justice Daniel Goundar on Monday.

Defence Counsel Rajendra Chaudhry opened his case then called Kumar as his first witness. He asked Kumar about his original appointment as Finance Manager. Chaudhry then asked the accused about the financial procedures of the Council to which Kumar replied that the procedure he followed was the practice of his predecessors. Kumar added that there was never any formal directive as to what procedure to follow therefore he followed the system he inherited.

Chaudhry then asked the accused about the council cheque number 1045 that he had signed as a cash cheque for Post Fiji and had later gone missing. The cheque was cashed on the day it was signed but never paid to Post Fiji. Kumar stated that he prepared the cheque in question, raised a payment voucher then forwarded the cheque to the Mayor for signing. Kumar said he had to prepare the cheque himself as Vinita Prasad (Accounts attachee) who usually did this was not available at the time. The cheque, Kumar said, had to be certified by someone more senior to the one who had prepared the cheque and had to be employed by the Council.

Kumar told the court that he had signed the cheque as a cash one and not non negotiable because three previous Council cheques had been dishonored and this time round Post Fiji would not accept a cheque. It was suggested to Kumar by one Meresiana Namanu (Council employee), that a cash cheque be written and cashed so that cash could be taken to Post Fiji instead.

Kumar told the court that during a promotion with Post Fiji, stationery was bought on credit and salaries of employees of the Nasinu Town Council who were part of the scheme had their wages periodically deducted. He explained that Namanu was exceptionally eager about making payment to Post Fiji because she wanted them to release books to her for her grand children. He said that it was Namanu who had suggested that cash payment be made to avoid another dishonoured cheque.

Kumar attempted to explain the double payment to Post Fiji saying he saw nothing out of order and that he had signed three subsequent cheques. Once he was reinstated as Manager Finance, he said he noticed the discrepancy and reported the matter to the Town Clerk.

Kumar also confirmed to the court that the Council surcharged him for the missing money after an enquiry was carried out.

Prosecution led that while writing the three subsequent cheques, Kumar had followed procedure by the book but in writing the cheque number 1045, an exception to procedures was made.

It was revealed in Court that the Chief Executive Officer of the Nasinu Town Council had knowledge of the double payment issue prior to Kumar writing to the council on the matter. It was shown that the only reason why Kumar had written the letter to the council because an enquiry was already underway and the CEO had asked him to explain himself.

Further questioning from Prosecution suggested the Defense Counsel only came up with the plot to blame Vinita Prasad to draw attention away from Kumar and cast doubts on the testimony of Prasad.

Chaudhry then called the Personal Secretary to the Nasinu Town Council Mayor in 2006, to take the stand. Rohini Lata stated that it was normal practice for Vinita Prasad, to bring the cheques to the Mayor to sign. She declared on the day in question that it was definitely Vinita Prasad who brought the cheque to the Mayor for signing. Lata said that though she had not personally held the cheque in her hands to inspect, she knew it was for Post Fiji. She said she remembered the cheque in question because a staff member who was very eager to have the cheque signed. The trial was adjourned to Tuesday 16th February.

ENDS

© Scoop Media