Former Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and former Supervisor of Elections Mohammed Saneem await a crucial High Court ruling set for February next year, which will determine their legal fates. The closing submissions from both the state and defense were presented before Chief Justice Salesi Temo in Suva.
Acting Director of Public Prosecution Nancy Tikoisuva claimed that Sayed-Khaiyum and Saneem acted with corrupt intent and violated legal processes laid out in the constitution. She emphasized in her arguments that the case revolves around their alleged misconduct in executing a Deed of Variation. Sayed-Khaiyum is charged with abuse of office, while Saneem faces allegations of receiving over $55,000 as a corrupt benefit tied to tax relief related to his back pay.
Tikoisuva insisted that the state has met the burden of proof, stating that the case is not merely about tax matters or employment issues but concerns the corrupt motives behind their actions in public office. She noted that regardless of being civil servants, their conduct could still be deemed criminal under the law.
In contrast, defense attorney Devanesh Sharma argued that the state’s case lacks merit and called for the charges to be dismissed. He defended that the transactions in question were adequately managed, conducted within legal parameters, and that there is no evidence that Saneem requested or accepted illicit benefits from Sayed-Khaiyum. He further contended that the reimbursement process for Saneem’s taxes was legitimate and that no additional government tax was ultimately paid.
Sharma highlighted that complaints from the public have acknowledged the potential for natural justice for the defendants, had they been fully informed of all relevant details. The defense maintained that they were being scrutinized under interpretations of law that were flawed and unconstitutional.
This case is not the first legal challenge for Sayed-Khaiyum and Saneem, as previous hearings and testimonies have shed light on procedural aspects of their roles in government. Notably, accusations have questioned the jurisdiction of the courts and the constitutionality of the actions taken against them, indicating a complex legal landscape ahead.
As the case progresses towards a pivotal judgment next February, it represents not just a personal reckoning for these former officials but also serves as a significant moment for accountability and governance in Fiji. The outcomes of this high-profile legal battle could influence public trust in governmental operations and set important precedents concerning misconduct among public officials.
Leave a comment