Both the State and Defence Counsel in the case involving former Supervisor of Elections, Mohammed Saneem, have agreed that the High Court must address three critical questions before proceedings can continue in the Lower Court. The issues at hand include the validity of the charges sanctioned by former Acting DPP John Rabuku, allegations of human rights violations against Saneem, and the jurisdiction of FICAC in investigating and prosecuting the case instead of the Fiji Police Force, unless communicated otherwise.
The case against Saneem and former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum was presented to Resident-Magistrate Yogesh Prasad in Suva on the previous day.
Defence attorney Davenesh Sharma contended that Saneem’s right to a fair trial, as stipulated in section 15(1) of the Constitution, has been compromised due to the charges approved by what he claimed was an unlawfully appointed Acting DPP. Sharma referenced a Supreme Court ruling in June 2024, which stated that John Rabuku’s appointment as Acting DPP violated section 105(2) of the Constitution, rendering it unlawful. Therefore, Sharma maintained that the charges against Saneem are null and void from the outset.
In the “Notice of Motion for an order under section 290(1)(f) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009,” the defence argued that Saneem has a vested interest in the case’s outcome, requiring a validation of the decision to file the criminal charges against him. The defence also disputed the legitimacy of Nancy Tikoisuva’s appointment as an officer to bring the proceedings, stating that she lacked authority under section 56(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Other claims included that the former DPP did not have enough evidence to charge Saneem in May 2023, that the timing of the charges seemed malicious, and that Saneem faced inhumane treatment while detained.
Sharma asserted that this motion is supported by Saneem’s affidavit and is filed under relevant sections of the Criminal Procedure Act and the Constitution.
On behalf of the State, Deputy DPP John Rabuku countered that the applicant’s request for the charges filed in March 2024 to be rendered null and void is misguided, as the Magistrate Court lacks the jurisdiction for such declarations. He cited legal precedents suggesting that the actions sought by the applicant would not succeed due to established doctrines regarding the validity of official appointments.
Furthermore, Rabuku criticized the defence counsel, arguing their claims lack a solid legal foundation and suggesting that the lawyer is attempting to circumvent proper legal channels. He made allegations of dishonesty against the applicant, urging the court to consider referring the lawyer to the Legal Practitioner’s Unit for misleading the court.
Rabuku concluded that the entire application ought to be dismissed based on the arguments presented. The matter is scheduled for a ruling on October 7, with both accused individuals excused and bail extended to them.