Businessman Sanjay Kaba’s lawyer has told the Suva Magistrates Court there is no case to answer in the abuse of office trial linked to Telecom Fiji Limited’s new headquarters and data centre project.

Defence lawyer Devanesh Sharma argued that the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption failed to produce evidence showing Kaba improperly used confidential information obtained while serving as a director of Telecom Fiji Limited to benefit engineering firm HLK Jacob.

Sharma submitted that the prosecution had not identified what specific information Kaba allegedly used to assist HLK Jacob’s expression of interest submission for the project.

The court heard the expression of interest process only required companies to provide capability statements, references and company profiles.

Sharma argued there was no evidence that Kaba drafted, reviewed or influenced the process and maintained the prosecution’s case was weak.

He told the court that none of the 14 prosecution witnesses linked Kaba to any improper conduct.

The defence also argued that independent committees within Telecom Fiji handled the evaluation, shortlisting, tender process and approval of payments.

Sharma submitted that the alleged conduct ended when Kaba resigned as a Telecom Fiji director in December 2018, while the expression of interest was issued after his resignation and payments to HLK Jacob were made years later.

He argued that independent decisions by Telecom Fiji management and board members broke any alleged connection between Kaba and the eventual payments made to HLK Jacob.

The defence further submitted that there was no evidence HLK Jacob was ineligible to receive the contract or payments, noting that witnesses confirmed the company completed the work and invoices were verified before payments were approved.

Sharma also criticised the prosecution for repeatedly amending the charge during proceedings, arguing the changes reflected weaknesses in the case.

He further raised concerns about delays and procedural fairness in the prosecution’s handling of submissions and correspondence before the hearing.

In response, the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption argued there was sufficient evidence for Kaba to answer the charge.

FICAC counsel Nimisha Shankar submitted that the court was not required at this stage to determine guilt, but only whether there was credible evidence capable of supporting the charge.

The prosecution relied on witness testimony and board documents to argue that Kaba, while serving as a director of Telecom Fiji Limited and Amalgamated Telecom Holdings, had access to confidential information relating to the project.

FICAC submitted that board meeting agendas, minutes and board papers discussing the proposed project were circulated to directors, including Kaba.

Shankar argued the information available to Kaba went beyond what was publicly disclosed in the expression of interest.

The prosecution alleged Kaba used insider information obtained through his role as a director to assist HLK Jacob in participating in the procurement process.

The court heard that FICAC’s case is based on inferred knowledge rather than direct evidence.

FICAC also rejected claims that amendments to the charge prejudiced the defence, arguing the substance of the allegations had remained unchanged throughout proceedings.

Resident Magistrate Charles Ratakele will deliver his ruling on the 19th of June.