Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Missing cocaine exhibits could complicate the prosecution in Fiji’s case involving Joshua Aziz Rahman, but they do not automatically end it. Lawyer Roopesh Singh told RNZ that the drugs would have been important evidence of what was seized and found in the accused’s possession, while circumstantial evidence could also be considered. The court—not Singh—will assess the admissible evidence and applicable procedure.
What happened to the cocaine exhibits?
RNZ reported on 2 October 2026 that cocaine held in the Suva High Court exhibit room for the Rahman case had gone missing. Forensic testing reportedly indicated that material believed to be cocaine had been replaced with flour. RNZ described the seized quantity as 39.5 kilograms and put its estimated street value at about US$14 million; that is a reported estimate, not an official valuation. RNZ’s report
FijiVillage reported on 29 September 2026 that police confirmed tests on the remaining exhibits returned negative for cocaine. It reported an estimated value of FJ$31 million for the Rahman exhibits. The FJ$31 million and RNZ’s approximately US$14 million are separate outlet-reported estimates in different currencies, not interchangeable official valuations. FijiVillage’s report
The Fiji Court of Appeal’s 12 February 2024 ruling describes the charge as unlawful possession of 39.5 kilograms of cocaine found at Caubati. Its record says Rahman appealed after his High Court conviction. Fiji Court of Appeal ruling
#1 Best Overall
Why do the exhibits matter to the case?
Physical evidence and identity
Singh, of Patel and Sharma Law Firm in Nadi, told RNZ that the drugs would have been important evidence to establish what was seized and found in the accused’s possession. Missing or substituted exhibits can therefore raise questions about the physical evidence and its custody. The available reports do not establish the precise amount missing, how any substitution occurred, or who was responsible.
Other evidence and the court’s assessment
Singh also told RNZ, “There could be circumstantial evidence that could be used,” and said the court would consider evidence presented by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. His comments are legal commentary, not a ruling on admissibility, the strength of the remaining evidence, or the outcome. Missing exhibits do not by themselves establish that a prosecution must fail or that anyone is guilty.
What is the status of the Rahman proceedings?
The procedural history requires care. The Court of Appeal’s February 2024 ruling records that Rahman’s conviction was quashed and a retrial ordered. FijiVillage later reported that the Supreme Court restored his conviction and sentence on 28 August 2026. The primary Supreme Court judgment is not available in the cited reporting, so that later outcome should be attributed to FijiVillage rather than presented as independently verified from the judgment. FijiVillage’s report
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →In a September 2026 statement, the ODPP said the Rahman proceedings remained ongoing and that it was aware of missing and potentially tampered exhibits. It also said destruction of exhibits is subject to legal process and that it had been preparing an application to destroy them after proceedings. FBC News reported the same ODPP position. ODPP statement · FBC News report
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What remains unconfirmed?
- The exact quantity of material missing or substituted and the circumstances of the apparent substitution have not been established in the cited accounts.
- The available reporting does not identify who may have been responsible or provide a full primary police briefing on the forensic findings.
- The primary Supreme Court judgment underlying the reported August 2026 outcome is not available in the cited sources.
Those uncertainties matter: the reported discovery is not itself a finding about responsibility, and Singh’s view does not determine whether the case can proceed. That depends on the evidence and legal process considered by the court.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
