A high court in Suva this week partially overturned a ruling from December 2024 in the case against Fiji’s former Supervisor of Elections, Mohammed Saneem, and former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.
The court ruled in favour of the appellants on three key points, including that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to decide on the validity of the charges sanctioned against them by the then Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, John Rabuku. However, the High Court upheld the consolidation of their cases.
On the first ground, Saneem and Sayed-Khaiyum argued that the police should not have handled their case, as it was an electoral matter that should have been investigated by the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC). The magistrate had dismissed this claim, stating that it would be addressed later in the trial. However, High Court Judge Justice Rajasinghe ruled that the magistrate should not have determined this matter. As a result, that part of the original ruling was set aside.
On the second ground, the appellants claimed their rights had been violated during their detention. In the magistrate’s December ruling, the court had dismissed this argument, stating that concerns regarding detention were irrelevant to the admissibility of the caution interview. However, in its latest decision, the High Court ruled that allegations of rights violations should be examined in greater detail. It directed that if the magistrate finds the concerns serious and not trivial, they must be referred to the High Court for further review.
Regarding the third ground, the appellants argued that Rabuku, who approved the charges against them, should not have been permitted to do so due to a Supreme Court opinion questioning his eligibility. The magistrate dismissed this argument, stating that the Supreme Court’s opinion had no bearing on past decisions. The High Court, however, applied the same reasoning as in the first ground, ruling that the magistrate should not have determined this matter. Consequently, this part of the original ruling was also set aside.
On the fourth ground, the appellants opposed the consolidation of their cases, arguing that it would be unfair since the charges against them were distinct. The magistrate had ruled in favour of consolidating the charges. Regarding this, the high court upheld the magistrate’s decision to combine the cases.
The matter has been adjourned to next month, for plea, in the Magistrates Court.
Sayed-Khaiyum is charged with one count of abuse of office, while Saneem faces one count of receiving a corrupt benefit.
It is alleged that between June 30 and July 12, 2022, while serving as Acting Prime Minister, Sayed-Khaiyum signed a Deed of Variation and Addendum between the Government and then Supervisor of Elections, Mohammed Saneem. It is also alleged that the approval for the government to pay Saneem’s taxes was granted without the proper authorisation of the Constitutional Offices Commission and the President.
It is also alleged that between June 1 and July 31, 2022, while serving as Supervisor of Elections, Saneem allegedly, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, sought and obtained a benefit for himself—namely, the approval and payment of more than $50,000 in deductible tax relief on his back pay from a senior Government official.
