FICAC v Jashwant Kumar: Trial Concludes

FICAC v Jashwant Kumar

Trial Concludes

The FICAC trial against the former Town clerk of Nasinu Town Council concluded yesterday afternoon with rousing closing statements by the defense and the prosecution in the Suva High Court.

Earlier that morning, the defence had called the former Nasinu Town Council Mayor Rajeshwar Kumar to take the stand. His testimony was that on 26 March 2006, he had not been feeling well and was at home when he received a call from the accused, informing him that there was an urgent need for a cash cheque to be signed. He said he accepted the reasons given to him by the accused and directed that to bring the cheque to his home to sign.

Rajeshwar declared that he could not remember who brought the cheque to him for signing. Kumar stated that there were documents accompanying the cheque that he deemed were in order. On further examination he said he could not recognize the handwriting on the payment voucher which was the supporting document accompanying the cheque.

When questioned by prosecution Rajeswar Kumar stated emphatically that he could not identify the handwriting of the accused as he had never in his entire eight years in the Council, received a hand written letter or note or document of any kind from the accused. He said he could recognize the signature of the accused but not his handwriting. Kumar further added that it looked like there were staple marks on the payment voucher suggesting that other documents had been removed and perhaps stapled back again.

FICAC prosecutor Laisa Lagilevu told the assessors that all the elements of their case were proven beyond reasonable doubt as she carefully took the assessors through each of the elements of the charges. Lagilevu clarified to the assessors that Judge Daniel Goundar would guide them through matters of law.

Defense Counsel Rajendra Chaudry mounted a lengthy closing statement where he attempted to show that there were serious issues raising doubts in the prosecution case.

Defense counsel stated that there were several weaknesses in the prosecution case such as the investigation gaps he had exposed. He disputed the use of the Auditor Generals audit report of the Nasinu Town Council mandated 31st December 2004 due to the date on the cover. This claim was challenged by Lagilevu saying that the scope of the audit report allowed it to cover an area and important matters beyond the date given in the mandate.

Chaudry tried to discredit the prosecution witness by saying that her testimony in court was an extreme departure from her original statement given to FICAC officers. He declared that there was coercion on the part of FICAC officers in obtaining the statement.

This was rebutted by Lagilevu who reminded the assessors that they heard for themselves how in fact the prosecution witness, Vinita Prasad, stood by her original statement even under a brutal cross examination.

Lagilevu said that in fact the accused never offered the possibility of Prasad being responsible for the cashed cheque in his original statement but the defense had tried to pin the blame on Prasad only when the trial had begun.

Defense counsel tried to discredit the prosecution witnesses Adrian Prasad claiming that if the issue was raised in the audit report why then was the accused not contacted for a comment. Lagilevu clarified that the accused was no longer working at the Nasinu Town Council at the time the report was completed and an explanation on the discrepancies in relation to the cheque 1045 was sought from the Council members.

Lagilevu in her closing statement reiterated that the elements of the charge were proven and one only had to go over the evidence presented to come to the same conclusion. The report was valid in that it contained issues relating to this case. Lagilevu concluded her case by going over all the elements of the offences to refresh the minds of the assessors.

The case has been adjourned to the 25th February for Judgment.

ENDS

© Scoop Media