News
Recordings in corruption case ruled admissible
Posted by Media Team 14 August 2025
The Nadi Magistrates Court has ruled that a lawyer facing corruption-related charges was neither assaulted, threatened, intimidated, nor coerced by prosecution witnesses.
Resident Magistrate Semi Babitu delivered the ruling during a π£πππ ππππ hearing for Mohammed Sharif, who is charged by the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) with one count of Personating a Public Officer and one count of Obtaining Financial Advantage by Deception.
It is alleged that between 1 January 2020 and 30 December 2020 in Nadi, Mr. Sharif falsely represented himself as Brigadier General Mohammed Aziz of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) and, through deception, dishonestly obtained $118,350 from the complainant.
The π£πππ ππππ hearing was initiated after the accused objected to the tendering of his mobile phone recordings and video footage as prosecution evidence.
He argued that:
β’ The visual and audio recordings were unlawfully obtained and uploaded into onto FICAC devices;.
β’ Proper procedures to preserve the integrity of the recordings were not observed
β’ Proof of ownership of the devices was not provided; and
β’ His constitutional rights under Sections 13, 14, and 24 of the 2013 Constitution, including the right to privacy, were violated.
During the hearing, the prosecution called three witnesses β a FICAC digital forensic officer and two police officers.
The forensic officer testified that he extracted the recordings using the internationally recognised Cellebrite data extraction tool, with the process carried out at a law firm where the complainant felt comfortable.
The second prosecution, who is also the complainant, testified that his phone was equipped with an application that automatically recorded calls.
He confirmed that the voice on the recordings was the accused and explained the content of each exhibit played in court.
During cross-examination, he admitted that he did not obtain the accusedβs consent before recording the calls.
The final witness confirmed recording the accused on his phone without the accusedβs consent.
After reviewing all evidence, Magistrate Babitu stated that he found the accused was neither assaulted, threatened, intimidated, nor coerced by any of the prosecution witnesses.
βFurther, having considered the entire evidence, I find that the accused person was not treated unfairly,β he said.
Magistrate Babitu ruled that the recordings tendered by the prosecution were admissible and could be used as evidence in the case.
