Drug immunity deal in Fiji comes with risks of revocation

Fiji's Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, John Rabuku, has clarified that immunity granted to individuals involved in the nation's largest cocaine seizure can be revoked. Those who received this conditional immunity are not absolved of wrongdoing and must adhere to stringent conditions set by prosecutors. Failure to comply could result in fresh charges, as investigators already possess evidence against them.

Rabuku outlined the conditions for immunity: participants must be truthful in their statements to the police, promptly respond to any requests to visit police stations for clarification, and maintain good behavior throughout the immunity period. To ensure their availability for the ongoing legal proceedings, some individuals have been restricted from international travel.

“

You’re granted immunity on these grounds. One, that you’ll be truthful to the police when you give your statement. Two, that every time the police contacts you to come to the police station to clear up something, you will come Three, that you will behave yourself during this immunity period.

The immunity strategy is primarily employed to gather crucial evidence against those believed to hold more significant roles in the cocaine operation. Rabuku noted that only two individuals, a carrier driver named Munandra and another man identified as Vishwa, had their charges withdrawn without conditional immunity. Prosecutors could not definitively prove these two knowingly possessed the cocaine. Rabuku explained that possession requires more than mere proximity or handling; it necessitates proving a person's knowledge of the drugs and intent to possess them. In Vishwa's case, he was on the vessel that collected the cocaine but reportedly only became aware of its nature after it was loaded, and the drugs were intercepted by police shortly thereafter. Prosecutors concluded he lacked the necessary intent to unlawfully possess the cocaine, nor was he reckless.

“

When we assessed this evidence, we knew that he had gone on the local vessel to collect the cocaine and that he had no knowledge at all that it was cocaine until it was loaded. And then when the cocaine came, it came straight to the police. Right? And so we were of the view that, endorsed by the boss, that he did not have the requisite mental element to unlawfully possess. And neither was he reckless.