The Suva Magistrate’s Court is scheduled to hear the case of former Supervisor of Elections, Mohammed Saneem. Saneem appeared before Magistrate Yogesh Prasad yesterday for a hearing regarding his application under Section 290 of the Criminal Procedure Act, in which he is contesting the following points:
– Issues related to human rights concerning the treatment of accused individuals by prosecutors and police;
– The legality of the charges against him and the appointment of the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), including Rabuku’s appointment and that of senior officers, which Saneem claims were unlawful;
– Allegations that the prosecution constitutes an abuse of process, arguing that the electoral matter he is charged with should be investigated solely by the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC).
Saneem faces a charge of abuse of office for allegedly accepting a corrupt benefit amounting to $55,944.03, linked to his back-pay from Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum. In the previous sitting, both parties agreed to transfer the matter to the High Court.
Yesterday’s hearing was focused on determining under which constitutional provision the case should be transferred to the High Court. During the proceedings, defense lawyer Devanesh Sharma advocated for Section 100, subsection 7 of the 2013 Constitution, which emphasizes the Magistrate’s authority to hear the case and indicates that a High Court appeal would be possible afterward.
On the other hand, Acting DPP Nancy Tikoisuva argued that the orders being sought, along with the grounds presented, pertained to a matter of judicial review, which is exclusive to the High Court. She referenced Section 266, subsection 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which allows the Magistrate’s Court to refer cases to the High Court, a procedure that should occur within a month of the court’s determination.
Sharma contended that the state’s reference to Section 266 (3) was not relevant, as no determination had been made by the court. He emphasized that the provisions permit the Magistrate’s Court to handle the matter, but acknowledged their consent to the High Court’s preference under Section 44 (5) of the Constitution.
Following the discussions, Magistrate Prasad granted both parties 21 days to submit their final arguments, with a hearing set for November 4. The magistrate requested that both parties also present their positions on combining Saneem’s case with that of former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum. All affidavits included in the submissions will be presented on the day of the hearing.