High Court judge Justice Nazhat Shameem heard submissions from counsels in the FICAC vs Rajeshwar Kumar and Jaswant Kumar case on the legality of the FICAC Promulgation.
The two face charges of embezzling funds from Nasinu Town Council.
Defence counsel Rajendra Chaudhry questioned whether the FICAC Promulgation was legally sound in Rajeshwar and Jaswant’s case.
Though the High Court had ruled in the Qarase va Bainimarama case that promulgations legislated by the President Ratu Josefa Iloilo were valid and lawful he submitted the FICAC Promulgation did not come from the President but the interim government.
Justice Shameem informed Mr Chaudhry it was not appropriate for a single judge in a criminal court to overturn the ruling of a three bench judge in a civil court and the FICAC Promulgation was signed by the President.
Mr Chaudhry submitted the President was not in a sound state of mind when signing the FICAC Promulgation. Further the FICAC Promulgation was put in place by an illegal regime and was unconstitutional.
FICAC prosecutor Paul Madigan in response stated Mr Chaudhry’s submissions were misconceived.
Mr Madigan submitted the President does not make promulgations anyhow or on a whim. The President is advised on such matters by the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
He stressed the Qarase vs Bainimarama ruling clearly stated the validity of the FICAC Promulgation.
Mr Madigan submitted the FICAC Promulgation assists in combating corruption in the country and therefore is not a bad law.
Justice Shameem has deferred plea to March 20 when she will rule on the submissions.