BREAKING NEWS UPDATE: DPP drops charges against Raj claiming INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE but did he lie to get stamp duty exemption? Why would a Fiji Labour Tribunal Judge, Joshika Samujh, the principal complainant, MAKE Things Up Against MIDA chairman Raj?
It is a fact Raj was heard & seen allegedly swearing by at least FIVE independent witnesses whose statements police (Raj's friend and police investigator Rakeshwar Singh) didn't disclose to DPP’s Office at all
THE annoyance charge laid against academic and Media Industry Development Authority chairman Ashwin Raj has been dropped due to insufficient evidence.
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions said this matter was referred to the DPP after representations for a review of the case were received by the DPP last week. Following a review of the case, the DPP concluded there was insufficient evidence to proceed with the matter.
The charge was withdrawn by way of a nolle prosequi when the matter was called in court last Friday: Source Fijivillage News
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions said this matter was referred to the DPP after representations for a review of the case were received by the DPP last week. Following a review of the case, the DPP concluded there was insufficient evidence to proceed with the matter.
The charge was withdrawn by way of a nolle prosequi when the matter was called in court last Friday: Source Fijivillage News
PREVIOUS STORY:
Fijileaks: Is that why Ashwin Raj wants Media Decree in place, and him as MIDA chairman to control the media from revealing his true character? In 2014 you told us you will not speak to Fijileaks for we had not earned your RESPECT; we never gave you and NEVER WILL - We repeat RESIGN, so that media can report your case without fear, intimidation, bullying and finger-wagging demands from you!
Police sources claim Raj, to get the complainants (sisters) charged, claimed that the (sisters) uttered that "Raj is having sexual relationship with AG and PM"; the allegation was put to the sisters in police caution interviews. But they claim Raj fabricated it to exact revenge on them!
The Principal Complainant against Raj: Joshika Samujh, a lawyer formerly with the Consumer Council of Fiji and now employed as a Legal Tribunal with the Ministry of Labour and Industrial Relations
SAMABULA police sources who had tipped off Fijileaks that they had MIDA chairman Ashwin Raj in police custody now claim that there are new developments to the case. The police sources claim that for the victims and their family members the debacle has not only caused distress and public humiliation when Raj allegedly called one of the complainants a prostitute and other defamatory remarks, now the case has taken a strange and ugly twist through Raj’s alleged abuse of power and influence through his close friendship with the people on the “top”.
According to the police sources the retaliation has come from Raj’s best friends, the Attorney-General and Solicitor General against the innocent and helpless victims who are being punished for standing up for their rights. Thus orders were issued on 4 February from the “top” to just counter-charge the two complainants for the same offence -“annoyance” - so that Raj finally gets his revenge.
In fact, as of the suspects' right to be informed exactly who issued the orders for charging, this was never given except they being told “orders came from the top”
The conspiracy and plot thickened with a Police Inquiry Paper (commonly called in police language PEP), meaning no actual CR or Crime Register complaint logged at the material time, but had originated as an allegation in writing to the police (we all know after his arrest Raj had written a three page letter to the Commissioner of Police), and which allegation was not supported by sufficient evidence.
According to the police sources the retaliation has come from Raj’s best friends, the Attorney-General and Solicitor General against the innocent and helpless victims who are being punished for standing up for their rights. Thus orders were issued on 4 February from the “top” to just counter-charge the two complainants for the same offence -“annoyance” - so that Raj finally gets his revenge.
In fact, as of the suspects' right to be informed exactly who issued the orders for charging, this was never given except they being told “orders came from the top”
The conspiracy and plot thickened with a Police Inquiry Paper (commonly called in police language PEP), meaning no actual CR or Crime Register complaint logged at the material time, but had originated as an allegation in writing to the police (we all know after his arrest Raj had written a three page letter to the Commissioner of Police), and which allegation was not supported by sufficient evidence.
Raj's friends and relatives allegedly fabricated their police statements; Investigating Officer removed and Raj's friend Police Officer Rakeshwar Singh (3687) handed the case to hound and charge the complainants; Singh accused of removing from police file statements of five independent witnesses against Raj!
This PEP of Raj as of 4 February was upgraded by “top” officials through a fabricated complaint and statements given by Raj’s close friends and relatives. Samabula police sources say something was noted in one of their log books (conveniently locked away when complainants wanted a copy). Police sources reveal that the complaint book actually shows the principal complainant, a female lawyer (Joshika Samujh, the Fiji Labour Tribunal Judge), first made a phone call to Samabula Police Station (SPS) at 19.29hrs and very conveniently, right after that, it now shows that Raj subsequently lodged a complaint around 19.45hrs on 11/1/2015.
According to the police sources, this is impossible because the police were already at the complainant’s mother’s flat in Kikau Street to attend to the complaint and write down statements. All the witness statements show the time also. In fact, we are aware that Raj had complained to the Commissioner of Police as to how SPS officers handled his case. So the new twist is this - after weeks of no mention of any legitimate cross complaint whatsoever that Raj really lodged a complaint at the material time hence his allegations started as a PEP, why is it now that police and DPP have changed this into a “CR” in favour of Raj’s top priority PEP?
According to the police sources, this is Raj’s and his “top” friends alleged web of conspiracy and lies to come out looking good to prove there was police ill-action; meaning that, it was not Raj at fault but the complainants. Of course, police sources at SPS confirmed this to be a deliberate fabrication to target the complainants at behest of all “top friends” of Raj who allegedly influenced SPS top officers Krishna Nair and Crime Officer IP Iakobo including Raj’s very close friend, Officer Rakeshwar Singh (3687). Even the attending officers who took the complaint and charged Raj have been taken in for questioning by DPP, Task Force and Internal Affairs as to what powers they have to investigate or charge Raj. It is then no surprise the Investigating Officer was removed from the case and Rakeshwar Singh took over, given his close friendship with Raj.
According to the police sources, this is impossible because the police were already at the complainant’s mother’s flat in Kikau Street to attend to the complaint and write down statements. All the witness statements show the time also. In fact, we are aware that Raj had complained to the Commissioner of Police as to how SPS officers handled his case. So the new twist is this - after weeks of no mention of any legitimate cross complaint whatsoever that Raj really lodged a complaint at the material time hence his allegations started as a PEP, why is it now that police and DPP have changed this into a “CR” in favour of Raj’s top priority PEP?
According to the police sources, this is Raj’s and his “top” friends alleged web of conspiracy and lies to come out looking good to prove there was police ill-action; meaning that, it was not Raj at fault but the complainants. Of course, police sources at SPS confirmed this to be a deliberate fabrication to target the complainants at behest of all “top friends” of Raj who allegedly influenced SPS top officers Krishna Nair and Crime Officer IP Iakobo including Raj’s very close friend, Officer Rakeshwar Singh (3687). Even the attending officers who took the complaint and charged Raj have been taken in for questioning by DPP, Task Force and Internal Affairs as to what powers they have to investigate or charge Raj. It is then no surprise the Investigating Officer was removed from the case and Rakeshwar Singh took over, given his close friendship with Raj.
Police Commissioner also accused of changing Raj's PEP to CR status; the complainants had lodged five previous complaints against Raj; in one case PO Singh had threatened the complainants; last year the female lawyer had filed an injunction against Raj and the family in High Court!
So when Police Commissioner came on Fiji TV after Raj was shown in the same segment saying only DPP has powers to charge, he was not mincing his words. He was substantiating Raj’s ‘PEP’ with ‘CR’ status at the advice of DPP. The Commissioner of Police in his bid to allegedly cover up “Raj embarrassment for being charged” and to look good against Raj’s allegation of “bad police handling” at SPS, had given orders through influence and pressure from the “top brass” including a host of very high level officers, Internal Affairs, Special Taskforce, CID, even DPP and SG’s office to investigate Raj’s PPE and find evidence even if it was fabricated.
The alleged conspiracy and power pushing by Raj has taken a heavy toll on the victims and their family as though they had committed a murder for complaining against Raj’s on-going alleged abuse of the family members. This is despite SPS had already five different complaints from the lawyer complainant from September-November 2014, wherein during one incident the same officer, Rakeshwar Singh had threatened the complainant to arrest and charge her with trespass at Raj’s one phone call. This had compelled the complainant to go to High Court with her Sale and Purchase agreement for an Injunction in November 2014. One just has to read the affidavit in support of the Injunction proceedings with real evidence of abuse therein. It has also emerged that the independent statements taken from at least 5 witnesses who were in actual fact present at the incident was deliberately removed from the file by Singh when he sent the file to his superiors. Singh confirmed that he sent only those documents he thought were relevant and others went in another file.
The alleged conspiracy and power pushing by Raj has taken a heavy toll on the victims and their family as though they had committed a murder for complaining against Raj’s on-going alleged abuse of the family members. This is despite SPS had already five different complaints from the lawyer complainant from September-November 2014, wherein during one incident the same officer, Rakeshwar Singh had threatened the complainant to arrest and charge her with trespass at Raj’s one phone call. This had compelled the complainant to go to High Court with her Sale and Purchase agreement for an Injunction in November 2014. One just has to read the affidavit in support of the Injunction proceedings with real evidence of abuse therein. It has also emerged that the independent statements taken from at least 5 witnesses who were in actual fact present at the incident was deliberately removed from the file by Singh when he sent the file to his superiors. Singh confirmed that he sent only those documents he thought were relevant and others went in another file.
Police sources accuse lawyer Seema Chand from A-G's Chambers of perverting the cause of justice by lying on Raj's behalf against sisters; FNU lecturer Arti Pillay also accused of fabricating evidence for Raj; Pillay provided surety for Raj!
According to the police sources, Raj was charged on 19 January. Afterwards, his friend Rakeshwar Singh began searching for fabricated witnesses in favour of Raj. Singh was seen making the rounds on Kikau Street. He was interviewing the neighbours as though randomly, to prove Raj’s cross-complaint that both sisters had uttered at the same time “Raj is having sexual relationship with AG and PM” .The police sources claim that Raj brought "bogus" witnesses to the Samabula Police Station a week after the incident.
One lawyer by the name Seema Chand from AG’s Chambers whom Raj had befriended and had been hanging out since participating in the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) tabled at the recent Geneva trip together, was seen at SPS in order to gang up with Raj to allege that the victim and her sister had simultaneously uttered words to the effect that “Raj is having sexual relationship with AG and PM”. This is utterly false allegation as in actual fact it was Raj who was allegedly threatening the victim and her family with names of these two close allies in every sentence with punitive actions like “loss of job”; “deportation”, etc, etc, etc. Never once any of the independent bystanders and neighbours who had heard or saw the victim or her family take AG or PM’s name in any context whatsoever. This was confirmed by Rakeshwar Singh when he said that all 5 independent witnesses in the victims favour were not considered by DPP because they said that they had never heard either sister refer to AG or PM at all. They only considered the statements in favour of Raj given by his parents, friends and relatives. But why would the two sisters need to use PM or AG in their personal battle? They are not the ones threatening the world!
The police sources claim that another close friend of Raj, Arti Pillay from FNU (lecturer at FSM in Food and Nutrition) who came forward to provide Raj surety attempted, in collusion with Raj, to give a statement that both sisters had uttered the same words at the same time in her presence. Lawyers will tell DPP’s office that a person giving surety and is close friend of Raj, is no independent witness. According to the victims, Pillay was not present at the scene or seen by any independent persons being present at the scene. This was never confirmed by the police as they only wanted a written statement and anything for Raj will do. But this had given Raj his first real ammunition to pressure the Police Commissioner to take counter action against the complainant or the victims.
One lawyer by the name Seema Chand from AG’s Chambers whom Raj had befriended and had been hanging out since participating in the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) tabled at the recent Geneva trip together, was seen at SPS in order to gang up with Raj to allege that the victim and her sister had simultaneously uttered words to the effect that “Raj is having sexual relationship with AG and PM”. This is utterly false allegation as in actual fact it was Raj who was allegedly threatening the victim and her family with names of these two close allies in every sentence with punitive actions like “loss of job”; “deportation”, etc, etc, etc. Never once any of the independent bystanders and neighbours who had heard or saw the victim or her family take AG or PM’s name in any context whatsoever. This was confirmed by Rakeshwar Singh when he said that all 5 independent witnesses in the victims favour were not considered by DPP because they said that they had never heard either sister refer to AG or PM at all. They only considered the statements in favour of Raj given by his parents, friends and relatives. But why would the two sisters need to use PM or AG in their personal battle? They are not the ones threatening the world!
The police sources claim that another close friend of Raj, Arti Pillay from FNU (lecturer at FSM in Food and Nutrition) who came forward to provide Raj surety attempted, in collusion with Raj, to give a statement that both sisters had uttered the same words at the same time in her presence. Lawyers will tell DPP’s office that a person giving surety and is close friend of Raj, is no independent witness. According to the victims, Pillay was not present at the scene or seen by any independent persons being present at the scene. This was never confirmed by the police as they only wanted a written statement and anything for Raj will do. But this had given Raj his first real ammunition to pressure the Police Commissioner to take counter action against the complainant or the victims.
Police sources claim neither Chand nor Pillay witnessed the incident, and Raj's two "aunties" gave statements to Singh in Raj's presence to police; the sisters were denied legal representation as Singh charged them! Singh became a regular visitor to Raj's house after charging the sisters!
According to the police sources Raj allegedly colluded and fabricated statements with his next door aunties and his very "independent parents". Raj’s close neighbour and mum Jamila Begum’s cousins (two next door aunties) allegedly gave a statement each, but in Raj’s presence only. As a matter fact because Mrs Sajra Khan and Nancy Feeri (Raj’s aunties visiting him daily around the incident) had specifically demanded to the police to help Raj but only with Raj being present when they gave statement to the police, Officer Rakeshwar Singh allowed Raj to sit in Mrs Khan house and guide her whilst they all wrote a statement together.
Strangely, Singh allegedly informed the sisters Raj’s swearing was witnessed by many independent witnesses in the street (at least confirmed by three direct neighours who witnessed and saw first-hand swearing up close and personal by Raj) and not the victim or her family, all these statement were not in the police file nor considered when making a decision to hound and charge the complainants.
Singh allegedly ordered the sisters to hand themselves to Samabula Police Station by 1pm on 4 February, threatening to lock them up if they did not turn up. Co-operating, the sisters appeared at SPS at 1pm. Raj’s close friend officer Rakeshwar Singh, handling the case for Raj since January, told the complainant that he had achieved his mission. Singh was also spotted visiting Raj's house after the sisters had been charged by him. He had been spending considerable time inside Raj's house. He gloated that the orders had come from "the top". IP Iakobo told the sisters that they were giving Raj’s PEP a priority who in turn, were mere loyal soldiers given directive from the top to arrest and charge the victim and her sister at all cost. The police was also directed to produce the two victims (now suspect and accused) in the court around the same time Raj’s case would be called. This is to teach the two victims a good lesson by the “top” punishing in their own way for finally taking an action against Raj’s on-going abuses and threats.The sisters were also denied legal representation by Singh despite being told that the lawyer representing the two victims was in High Court for a day long trial.
Then a call came from somewhere around 5pm to Rakeshwar Singh and despite a court date for first call was given for 24th April, this was synchronized to fall with Raj’s case around the same time in February. Rakeshwar Singh again said he was merely doing what the “top” told him. Interestingly though, first Raj had attacked the police for the “way they handled his case”, insinuating that the police had maliciously and arbitrarily arrested him in an attempt to ruin his so-called pristine reputation. Obviously this was Raj’s brilliant face-saving tactics designed to divert attention from his charges and calls by the public to step down as the MIDA Chairman backed up by AG and PM. The fabrication of the allegation was obviously an afterthought when the police were already called to attend to the female lawyer’s complaint who had taken her, the family, and certain independent witness statements. The news of Raj's arrest and charge was reported as though he was a victim of police inefficiency and malicious actions. It is a fact he was heard and seen allegedly swearing by at least 5 independent witnesses which police did not disclose to DPP’s office at all.
Strangely, Singh allegedly informed the sisters Raj’s swearing was witnessed by many independent witnesses in the street (at least confirmed by three direct neighours who witnessed and saw first-hand swearing up close and personal by Raj) and not the victim or her family, all these statement were not in the police file nor considered when making a decision to hound and charge the complainants.
Singh allegedly ordered the sisters to hand themselves to Samabula Police Station by 1pm on 4 February, threatening to lock them up if they did not turn up. Co-operating, the sisters appeared at SPS at 1pm. Raj’s close friend officer Rakeshwar Singh, handling the case for Raj since January, told the complainant that he had achieved his mission. Singh was also spotted visiting Raj's house after the sisters had been charged by him. He had been spending considerable time inside Raj's house. He gloated that the orders had come from "the top". IP Iakobo told the sisters that they were giving Raj’s PEP a priority who in turn, were mere loyal soldiers given directive from the top to arrest and charge the victim and her sister at all cost. The police was also directed to produce the two victims (now suspect and accused) in the court around the same time Raj’s case would be called. This is to teach the two victims a good lesson by the “top” punishing in their own way for finally taking an action against Raj’s on-going abuses and threats.The sisters were also denied legal representation by Singh despite being told that the lawyer representing the two victims was in High Court for a day long trial.
Then a call came from somewhere around 5pm to Rakeshwar Singh and despite a court date for first call was given for 24th April, this was synchronized to fall with Raj’s case around the same time in February. Rakeshwar Singh again said he was merely doing what the “top” told him. Interestingly though, first Raj had attacked the police for the “way they handled his case”, insinuating that the police had maliciously and arbitrarily arrested him in an attempt to ruin his so-called pristine reputation. Obviously this was Raj’s brilliant face-saving tactics designed to divert attention from his charges and calls by the public to step down as the MIDA Chairman backed up by AG and PM. The fabrication of the allegation was obviously an afterthought when the police were already called to attend to the female lawyer’s complaint who had taken her, the family, and certain independent witness statements. The news of Raj's arrest and charge was reported as though he was a victim of police inefficiency and malicious actions. It is a fact he was heard and seen allegedly swearing by at least 5 independent witnesses which police did not disclose to DPP’s office at all.
Raj allegedly sought exemption of $12,000 and was granted by Khaiyum and Sharma after falsely claiming that the house he bought was for residential purpose, when evidence proves he was renting the bottom flats to the sisters for $850 a month!
Another fact is that Raj called on favours in lieu of his unwavering support of the regime, leading up to the elections last year and sought exemption of close to $12,000 by not paying stamp duties when he bought his house in April last year. Exemption was granted by AG (minister of tax) and this was facilitated by SG’s personal involvement as MIDA member of the Board after Raj had called him on several occasions and sought the favour. Raj had subsequently given undertaking to Commissioner of Stamps Duties that the Kikau street house will be used for residential purpose only and not for commercial gain. But it is a fact that he has rented the bottom flats and earned $850 per month since July last year. The tenancy agreement proves the case against him.
RESIGN NOW, ASHWIN RAJ; Allegedly Calling a Female Lawyer and Fiji Labour Tribunal Judge "Prostitute" -
STEP DOWN AS MIDA CHAIRMAN
