Former Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum’s bid to travel overseas for medical assessment has been denied by the Suva High Court. Chief Justice Salesi Temo delivered the ruling this morning, saying the medical evidence did not specifically substantiate the claims of stroke and heart problems.
This marks Sayed-Khaiyum’s fourth bail application. His lawyers have contended that he suffered a stroke and ischemic heart disease last month and was hospitalised at Aspen Medical Hospital in Lautoka. Justice Temo, however, said his medical issues can be examined and treated in Fiji, and he must remain in the country to attend his trial, which is scheduled to run from September 15 to October 3.
Sayed-Khaiyum faces a range of serious charges, including six counts of abuse of office and seven counts of obstructing the course of justice. The court’s decision to keep him in Fiji means he will continue to participate in proceedings locally, even as questions about his health and overseas medical options have persisted in previous rulings.
Context from related bail proceedings shows a pattern in Suva courts of carefully weighing health needs against the integrity and timeliness of the judicial process. In prior cases, judges have scrutinised the necessity and duration of overseas medical travel, as well as the potential risk of non-appearance, before granting any variation to bail conditions.
What this means going forward:
– The trial remains on the current schedule, with appearances expected between September 15 and October 3.
– The health aspect of the case continues to be a factor, but the court has signaled that adequate medical care can be provided locally if needed.
– The dispute over overseas medical travel may recur if new health developments arise and could prompt further bail considerations.
Optional notes for readers:
– This ruling reflects the judiciary’s attempt to balance a defendant’s health needs with the right to timely justice and courtroom attendance.
– If overseas medical evaluation becomes essential again, the defence may refile arguments, potentially citing established case-law such as Arts v State and Qarase v Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption, which emphasize exceptional circumstances and the impact on the judicial process.
Summary: The Suva High Court has refused to grant bail for overseas medical travel, keeping Sayed-Khaiyum in Fiji while his trial proceeds later this year. His health remains a central consideration, but the court affirmed that necessary medical evaluation and treatment can be pursued locally.
Comment: This decision illustrates the ongoing tension between ensuring access to necessary medical care for high-profile defendants and maintaining the efficiency and integrity of the judicial process. It also underscores the judiciary’s willingness to err on the side of ensuring participants remain available for trial, while still acknowledging health concerns.
If you’d like, I can add a brief explainer of the legal standards typically cited in bail variation decisions and a concise timeline of key dates in Sayed-Khaiyum’s case.
Leave a comment