FICAC: NO Case to Answer against Chandra. Narube and Chaudhry's lawyer Sevuloni Ratumaiyale Valenitabua to Deputy Commissioner of FICAC Rashmi Aslam:
"A scrutiny of the documents would prove whether the allegations had any merit. This can only be verified by the original payment vouchers, cheques and related records, pertaining to these payments being produced for our clients’ scrutiny. The question which arises from this conduct of impounding documents is: Why would FICAC impound documents connected with [the complaint] and withhold them from public scrutiny if all payments, as you claim in your letter of 28 January 2022, were in order? Our clients ask: Why have you not commented on this very important and crucial observation which in itself is sufficient evidence as to the nature of the alleged payments? If all payments were legitimately made, as you assert in your letter, then you should have no problem providing the documents for our clients’ scrutiny."
 |  |  |
Labour and Unity Fiji are demanding that FICAC produce all relevant documents relating to their allegations that the former chairman of the Electoral Commission Suresh Chandra had made false claims for payments for which he was paid by cash cheques.
A scrutiny of the documents would prove whether the allegations had any merit, they say. This was after FICAC said there was no case to answer.
The allegations were filed with the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) on 21 December 2021.
The Deputy Commissioner of FICAC Rashmi Aslam wrote back on 28 January 2021 to say there was “no evidence whatsoever to support any false or fraudulent payment…” by either of the two parties named in the allegations.
Suva lawyer Sevuloni Ratumaiyale Valenitabua, acting for Labour and Unity Fiji, replied to Mr Aslam on 16 February. He said his clients stand by the allegations, adding:
“This can only be verified by the original payment vouchers, cheques and related records, pertaining to these payments being produced for our clients’ scrutiny.
His clients, he said, informed him that FICAC had impounded all the documents relevant to the alleged false payments.
“The question which arises from this conduct of impounding documents is: Why would FICAC impound documents connected with [the complaint] and withhold them from public scrutiny if all payments, as you claim in your letter of 28 January 2022, were in order?
“Our clients ask that you prove that the allegations and complaints are “baseless and without merit” as you said in your letter, by letting our clients inspect all documents pertaining to their allegations and complaints.”
Further, he asked why FICAC had made no reference to allegations that the false claims were paid by cash cheques in breach of government regulations.
“Our clients ask: Why have you not commented on this very important and crucial observation which in itself is sufficient evidence as to the nature of the alleged payments?”
“If all payments were legitimately made, as you assert in your letter, then you should have no problem providing the documents for our clients’ scrutiny,” Mr Valenitabua said in his reply.
Pic below: Mr Chaudhry, Mr Narube and Mr Valenitabua pictured after a media conference in Suva
A scrutiny of the documents would prove whether the allegations had any merit, they say. This was after FICAC said there was no case to answer.
The allegations were filed with the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) on 21 December 2021.
The Deputy Commissioner of FICAC Rashmi Aslam wrote back on 28 January 2021 to say there was “no evidence whatsoever to support any false or fraudulent payment…” by either of the two parties named in the allegations.
Suva lawyer Sevuloni Ratumaiyale Valenitabua, acting for Labour and Unity Fiji, replied to Mr Aslam on 16 February. He said his clients stand by the allegations, adding:
“This can only be verified by the original payment vouchers, cheques and related records, pertaining to these payments being produced for our clients’ scrutiny.
His clients, he said, informed him that FICAC had impounded all the documents relevant to the alleged false payments.
“The question which arises from this conduct of impounding documents is: Why would FICAC impound documents connected with [the complaint] and withhold them from public scrutiny if all payments, as you claim in your letter of 28 January 2022, were in order?
“Our clients ask that you prove that the allegations and complaints are “baseless and without merit” as you said in your letter, by letting our clients inspect all documents pertaining to their allegations and complaints.”
Further, he asked why FICAC had made no reference to allegations that the false claims were paid by cash cheques in breach of government regulations.
“Our clients ask: Why have you not commented on this very important and crucial observation which in itself is sufficient evidence as to the nature of the alleged payments?”
“If all payments were legitimately made, as you assert in your letter, then you should have no problem providing the documents for our clients’ scrutiny,” Mr Valenitabua said in his reply.
Pic below: Mr Chaudhry, Mr Narube and Mr Valenitabua pictured after a media conference in Suva
