Court acquits eight accused after complainant withdraws burglary case
By ASSUMPTA BUCHANAN
Solomon Star, Honiara
The court has strongly criticised a complainant for withdrawing a burglary case, describing the move as “disappointing and cowardice” and a waste of state resources after defendants had spent months in custody.
Principal Magistrate Felix Hollison made the remarks in a ruling delivered recently, while acquitting eight defendants charged with burglary after the complainant withdrew his support for the case, stating he was unwilling to testify.
“It is understood that the complainant has the right to request the prosecutions to withdraw the charge against the defendants,
“…..however, the state’s resources have been expended to apprehend the defendants and complete the investigations which resulted in the laying of the charge,” Magistrate Hollison said.
He added that the defendants have been confined and remanded for around 3-5 months because of the complainant’s report.
“The decision to withdraw the case by the complainant therefore is disappointing and cowardice, as he should not have reported the matter in the first place, if he was going to withdraw it.
“This is a waste of the court’s time and resources.”
The accused Pius Manani, Godfrey Ini, Walex Mariano, Jereme Paoha, Stanley Hou, Carlos E’elei, Celestino Atite, and Willey Pole had been jointly charged with one count of burglary.
The charge relates to an incident on the night of 27 November 2025 at Chaleivunga village in Central Guadalcanal, where the defendants were alleged to have broken into a dwelling house and stole $1,771,900 and 11 grams of gold.
All defendants had entered pleas of not guilty.
Despite the seriousness of the allegations, the case took a decisive turn when the complainant repeatedly informed the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions of his desire to withdraw the matter.
He further stated that he would not be willing to give evidence if the case proceeded to trial.
When summoned to court on 8 April 2026, the complainant confirmed his position and disclosed that he had recovered approximately $1 million of the allegedly stolen money.
The prosecution acknowledged that the case depended heavily on the complainant as the primary witness.
In light of his unavailability and the resulting insufficiency of evidence, the Crown applied to withdraw the charges under section 190(2)(b)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
In his ruling, Magistrate Hollison accepted that the application was supported by valid reasons, noting that without the complainant’s testimony, the case was unlikely to succeed.
The court therefore granted the application, withdrew the charge, and ordered the immediate acquittal of all eight defendants.
The court also directed that cash bail payments of $3,000 each be refunded to two of the defendants who had been granted bail earlier in the proceedings, and that any property held by police be returned promptly.
The remaining defendants had been released on principal bail shortly before the ruling.
The court said that although a complainant can ask to withdraw a case, doing so can cause serious problems, especially when it wastes time and resources.
The ruling also noted that the right to appeal is still available.
Lawyers from the Public Solicitor’s Office represented the defendants, while the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions appeared for the Crown.
