From left: Justice Paul Madigan, Nazhat Shameem, Clive Grossman QC, DPP Christopher Pryde, Chaudhry and his lawyer Anand Singh
"His [Mahendra Chaudhry's] grounds of application are that: (1) the applicant is "informed" that I attended a workshop conducted by the DPP from 16 - 23 July 2010 where these proceedings were "exhaustively discussed" and where I made the suggestion that a schedule of the applicant's bank accounts be attached to the information...He then goes on to say that these "facts" have been confirmed to him by a former senior member of the DPP's office. (2) the applicant "understands and believes to be common knowledge" that I have in the past "socialized" with the Prosecutor in the proceedings, one Mr. Clive Grossman, and have previously had a working relationship with Mr. Grossman's Junior Counsel, Ms. Elizabeth Yang...It is unfortunate that these hearsay allegations are not supported by evidence, for example by an affidavit of the "former senior member" of staff. The reason why, undoubtedly, is that the allegations are mendacious, perfidious and malicious and s/he would not want to perjure h/self. I have never discussed the applicant's charges with any member of the office of the DPP outside of the Courtroom, let alone made suggestions as to the composition of the Information, which would be unthinkable for a criminal Judge." - Justice Paul Madigan, 18 September 2103, while dismissing Mahendra Chaudhry's recusal application
| By Fijileaks Insight Team The tug-of-war between the Fiji Labour Party leader Mahendra Pal Chaudhry and Justice Paul Madigan for the judge to recuse himself from presiding over Chaudhry's tax case takes a dramatic twist. The Chaudhrys have given Fijileaks confidential documents from DDPs Office (Prosecution Brief), affidavits, and letters which seem to support their alleged claim that Madigan was intimately involved behind the scenes in framing the tax charges against Chaudhry. They claim that their key informant in this matter is the former DPP prosecutor WASU PILLAY, now in private practice with Gordon Lawyers. Pillay is yet to reply to Fijileaks despite our numerous requests for comments. |  PROSECUTION BRIEF: Mahendra Chaudhry claims that the 109 page long document was given to Rajendra Chaudhry by a former DPP prosecutor Wasu Pillay now in private practice  |  Chaudhry leaving the Fiji High Court with his NZ lawyers and Peter Williams QC and Heeni Philips. He has pleaded not guilty.  |
UNMASKED? DPP Mole allegedly Wasu Pillay UNMASKED? Wasu Pillay as he appears on his Facebook page |  Chaudhry: Prosecution Brief reveals Attorney- General Aiyaz Khaiyum interferred with case |
 WASU PILLAY: Fijileaks sent to Pillay the allegations for comment but to date he has not responded to us  Aiyaz Khaiyum "interferred" with the case tainting the DPP, claim Chaudhrys  Seini Puamau from DPP's Office prepared Prosecution Brief but her affidavit in support of Madigan is disputed by Chaudhry |     The above excerpts are from the Prosecution Brief which Chaudhry claims was passed onto him by Wasu Pillay |
 Former judge Nazhat Shameem (second from left) at a "Protecting Fiji from Money Laundering" conference " I was informed and so believe that the charges I face/d were the subject of a DPP workshop, which was organized prior to my being charged, around 16-23 July 2010, by Ms Nazhat Shameem, a former judge who was then reportedly a consultant to the office of the DPP" - Mahendra Chaudhry in his affidavit for Madigan's recusal from his case |  "He (Wasu Pillay) dropped off the Prosecution Brief to my office in Suva in or around April 2012. He had it saved in a USB and copied it to my laptop. He left for Labasa after MPC was charged and had applied for recusal of Goundar and permanent stay of the charges." - Rajendra Chaudhry to Fijileaks. |
 The Chaudhrys outside the Suva High Courtin August 2012. 27th June 2013 Mr. Wasu Pillay Messrs. Gordon & Company Barristers & Solicitors 157 Vitogo Parade Lautoka Dear Mr. Pillay I write to request your kind assistance in the Suva High Court Criminal Action 137 of 2010 against me. You are familiar with the case as you dealt with it during your employment with the DPP’s Office in 2010. The subsisting charges in this action against me relate to alleged breaches of the Exchange Control Act. I have been informed that you attended a workshop convened by the DPP’s Office to discuss my case following the laying of charges against me in the Suva Magistrates Court on 23 July 2010. The case was subsequently transferred to the Suva High Court. Those who participated in the workshop included Mr. Aca Rayawa (then Acting DPP), Ms. Nazrat Shameem (former Judge) Justice Paul Madigan, a number of prosecution staff and other members of the legal fraternity. The workshop was held on or about 28 July 2010. I have been informed by my son Rajendra Chaudhry and Mr. David Toganivalu, former Deputy DPP, that you had confided to them that Judge Madigan participated actively in the workshop and even suggested that certain schedules be added to the charges as presented in the Magistrates Court. As you know, my case was initially heard by Judge Daniel Goundar who dealt with the first stay application made by me to permanently stay/ quash all the twelve charges laid against me. The other charges related to proceeds of Crime Act and Income Tax Act. Judge Goundar permanently stayed/ quashed all the charges except the three subsisting charges where he ruled that a case had not been made to establish abuse of process. His ruling was delivered on 25 July 2012, following which he directed that the case be placed before Judge Madigan to deal with the remaining charges. A second application for permanent stay was filed in respect of the three remaining charges and was heard by Judge Madigan on 26 April 2013. At this hearing my Senior Counsel, Peter Williams QC, requested Judge Madigan to recuse himself as it had come to the knowledge of the defense that the Judge had participated in a workshop convened by the office of the DPP in which my case was discussed. The Judge ruled that he would not recuse himself as he had no recollection of attending a workshop convened by the DPP in which my case was discussed. However, he admitted that he had, from time to time, attended a number of workshops and some of them were workshops convened by the DPP’s office. It will be noted that Judge Madigan did not categorically deny participating in the workshop which discussed my case but said that he could not recollect attending such a workshop. As a Counsel yourself, you would well appreciate my reasons for making this approach to you. I find it extremely hard to believe that the Judge’s powers of recollection could be so weak. Aside from your good self, two other former staff members of the DPP’s office have also confided that Judge Madigan participated in the workshop. I will also approach them for confirmation. All I seek of you in the name of justice and fair play is an affidavit or a letter confirming Judge Madigan’s participation in the workshop. Just how important is this factual bit of evidence to my case may be well appreciated by you as a member of the Bar. I did try to contact you by phone before writing this letter but was unable to speak to you as you were out of the office. I shall be only too pleased to discuss the contents of this letter with you at a time convenient to you. My contact numbers are 3301 865 (res) 9921 865 (mobile) 3373 317 (office). I hope to hear from you soon. With warm regards. Yours sincerely Mahendra P. Chaudhry
Fijileaks Editor: Full Investigation to be published soon. |
