State lawyer, Laisani Tabuakuro in her sentencing submission told the Magistrates Court in Suva today that former Prime Minister, Voreqe Bainimarama and suspended Commissioner of Police, Sitiveni Qiliho should serve an immediate custodial sentence after being found guilty by the High Court.

Tabuakuro said both the men held positions of power as the leader of Government and as the leader of the Police Force and of Bainimarama to be hinting or suggesting things to the Commissioner of Police is a gross violation of the roles that they both execute.

She suggested that Bainimarama should serve an immediate custodial sentence of up to 12 to 36 months and that Qiliho serve a period of six to 10 years.

Tabuakuro said that the State’s stance on a non-custodial sentence was that if either have a two-year sentence, they could serve a non-custodial sentence and a non-conviction was not appropriate in this case.

She said that the aggravating factor in this case was that there was a gross high level of interference by the former Prime Minister to influence his power and they failed to protect the interest of the Fijian taxpayers who had a $34 million stake in USP annually.

Defence lawyer, Davenesh Sharma argued that the $34 million referred by the State was irrelevant to this case as the money was discussed at a National Security Council Meeting when there were discussions about whether the Government of Fiji should give such a grant to USP if there was evidence of mismanagement.

Sharma said this showed that the Government was indeed concerned about the money it was giving to USP and there was no mention of any amount in the charge.

He said until now no charges have been laid by the Criminal Investigations Department against USP staff and none of the prosecution witnesses like Reshmi Dass or Serupepeli Neiko referred to any figures and referring to the $34 million is wrong.

Sharma said the State alleged that both were charged as public servants and the initial charge against Bainimarama was withdrawn as he was not a civil servant and the charge was replaced with the new charge; however, Qiliho was charged as a civil servant.

He said the State has relied heavily on the Peni Mau and Mahendra Patel’s case and the late Laisenia Qarase’s case ; and all of these cases involved a breach of institutionalized procedures.

Sharma said Mau breached Post Fiji Limited Tender Process Procedures, Patel breached the Post Fiji Limite policy of failing to declare a conflict of interest, and the former Prime Minister failed to declare a conflict of interest under Fijian Holdings Company Policy which was also part of the Companies Act.

He said the case against Bainimarama and Qiliho did not involve a breach of institutionalized procedures.

The defence further argued that the State submitted that good character and past record do not count as mitigation factors- this is fundamentally wrong because section 4(2)(1) makes its mandatory for a sentencing Court to take into account the convicted person’s previous character.