Both the prosecution and defense have agreed that three significant questions need to be resolved by the High Court before the ongoing case involving former Supervisor of Elections, Mohammed Saneem, can proceed in the Lower Court.
The High Court must answer the following questions: the legitimacy of the charge against Saneem as sanctioned by former Acting DPP John Rabuku; the allegations of human rights violations against Saneem; and whether the Electoral Act grants FICAC the authority to investigate and prosecute the case rather than the Fiji Police Force, except in cases of communication.
The case against Saneem and former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum was discussed before Resident-Magistrate Yogesh Prasad in Suva yesterday.
In defense, Suva lawyer Davenesh Sharma contended that Saneem’s right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by section 15(1) of the Constitution, has been compromised due to the charges being approved by an unlawfully appointed Acting DPP. Sharma noted that the Supreme Court determined in June 2024 that John Rabuku’s appointment was unconstitutional, making any sanctioned charges void from the start.
The defense’s Notice of Motion argues that Saneem has a vested interest in questioning the validity of the criminal charge against him. Furthermore, they labeled the appointment of Nancy Tikoisuva as an ‘officer’ as invalid, claimed the former DPP did not find sufficient evidence to file charges in May 2023, and suggested that the circumstances surrounding the charges indicated malicious intent. They also pointed out that Saneem was deprived of police bail, faced inhumane treatment, and that the police’s actions were cruel and degrading, undermining the fairness of the proceedings.
Sharma emphasized that the application is based on several sections of the Criminal Procedure Act and the Constitution.
From the prosecution’s side, Deputy DPP John Rabuku argued that claims made by Saneem are misplaced, stating that the Magistrate Court does not possess the authority to declare the charges null and void as requested. Rabuku pointed out that any such declarations would contradict established legal doctrines.
Rabuku accused the defense attorney of lacking ethical grounding on multiple points: failing to acknowledge that the Supreme Court had not expressed any adverse views regarding Rabuku’s earlier decisions; attempting to circumvent the appropriate legal process for challenging decisions in a ‘judicial review’; and making unsupported allegations against police and ODPP conduct as matters that would need to be addressed in a high court application.
He also claimed that the defense attorney provided misleading information in his affidavit regarding a media release from the Fijian Elections Office and failed to disclose his own disrespectful comments about the State on social media.
Rabuku stated that the court lacks jurisdiction to review the DPP’s decisions, and he urged the court to refer the defense attorney to the Legal Practitioner’s Unit for honesty issues, asserting that the entire application should be dismissed.
The court will issue a ruling on October 7, and both accused have been excused from appearing, with their bail conditions continued.