The role environmental officers played in a controversial development has come under scrutiny in the court case against Freesoul Real Estate Fiji Limited.
The developer is charged with two counts of undertaking unauthorised developments and one count of failure to comply with a prohibition notice under the Environment Management Act.
Solevu Village on Malolo Photo: Supplied
Freesoul has denied the allegations.
Magistrate Suini Puamau said the work of an environmental officer included screening and scoping and in this case, the purpose of the inspection was to determine whether there was an environmental breach.
She said such a breach would lead to prosecution and whomever went in to address the claims regarding Malolo should be a designated or appointed inspector.
If convicted, the company directors face fines of up to $US345,000 or a term of imprisonment of up to 10 years, or both.
The Fiji Times reported Department of Environment director Sandeep Singh told the court the job description of environmental officers was broad and it did not specify that they were also gazetted inspectors.
Singh said when officers conducted environment impact assessments in an area, they also carried out screening, scoping, compliance work and inspections.
She said the assessments were conducted to determine the environmental impact that may have occurred in an area before development work commenced.
Singh also said the terms of reference after an assessment was made would be provided by the consultant, who had been hired by the developer, but that the department had the final say on whether it was safe to develop the area.
She said in this case, a prohibition notice was issued under the Environment Management Act 2005 because of the alleged illegal development by Freesoul.
Environment officer Kelera Tokalau told the court that when she visited the development site for the first time on August 1, 2017 and again on June 1, 2018 the landscape had changed.
But Tokalau could not confirm whether she was a gazetted inspector.
Meanwhile, Freesoul lawyer Daniel Toganivalu informed the court that charges against the company only related to Wacia on Malolo Island, which is the land-based area.
Toganivalu said Freesoul was not charged for any development which took place on the foreshore area.
The thing that we have heard from the director is that the water area or the high water mark belongs to the State, he said.
"We are not really concerned about what's happening at the foreshore because we are not charged with it.
"If you look at the charge, we are only charged for the unauthorised development activity on Wacia which is the native lease or the land lease."
But prosecutor Swastika Kiran said the State understood that the whole area of Wacia is Malolo, "but it's just the lease is divided between the land and the foreshore".
Magistrate Puamau said following the director of the Department of Environment's evidence, she was now clear about how the department operated.
"The only question now is, was it a facility or a development activity," she said.
"Was it something that you needed to have special powers to enter or some kind of permission to enter or was it something any member of the public could walk in at any time?"
The case was adjourned to 5 August.
