The former Supervisor of Elections, Mohammed Saneem, testified in court that his rights were infringed during his arrest and remand earlier this year. Saneem appeared at the Suva Magistrate’s Court before Magistrate Yogesh Prasad to address the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions’ (ODPP) request to consolidate charges against him and former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.
Saneem contended that his human rights were violated between March 8 and March 11 of this year. The allegations against him involve unlawfully soliciting over $50,000 in tax relief benefits while he was serving as the Supervisor of Elections from June 1 to July 31, 2022.
During his testimony, Saneem described the events of his arrest, claiming that two police officers, disguised as clients, visited his law firm under the pretext of needing legal assistance before taking him into custody. He noted that he was unable to secure legal representation at that time, as his preferred attorney was unavailable. Instead of allowing him to arrange for temporary legal help, Saneem claimed that the Director of Public Prosecutions ordered his immediate charging after 4 p.m.
He testified that he received no written justification for his detention, with the police reportedly citing “orders from above.” Saneem detailed the difficult conditions he faced while detained at the Totogo Police Station, describing how the stress from his previous responsibilities compounded his distress during that period.
In a twist to the proceedings, Saneem responded to allegations of undue influence regarding a FijiFirst party banner present at the Suva Civic car park. He presented a letter from Mukesh Chand, the former chair of the Electoral Commission, confirming his efforts to have the banner removed, illustrating his adherence to impartiality.
Co-defendant Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum is facing charges of abuse of office, accused of improperly authorizing a payment arrangement that benefited Saneem without sufficient approvals. The case has been adjourned until December 17 for a ruling.
This situation highlights the complex intersection of duty, power, and accountability in government roles, raising vital questions about the protection of individual rights within the legal framework. It serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency and due process, with hope that the judicial process will bring clarity and justice to the case.
Leave a comment