Defence attorney Devanesh Sharma has submitted a motion under Section 290 of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the trial of former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and former Supervisor of Elections Mohammed Saneem. The two appeared in court yesterday before Magistrate Yogesh Prasad, facing abuse of office charges at the Suva Magistrate’s Court.
Sayed-Khaiyum is charged with allegedly signing a Deed of Variation and Addendum between the Government of Fiji and Saneem while he was acting as Prime Minister in 2022. Saneem is accused of unlawfully receiving a corrupt benefit of $55,944.03 from Sayed-Khaiyum in the same year.
Initially, the proceedings were set to address the defence’s opposition to the Director of Public Prosecutions’ (DPP) motion to consolidate the cases against the two. However, Sharma informed the court that they were seeking various orders under Section 290 to ensure fair trial rights for his clients.
One of the key arguments presented by Sharma was the claimed illegality surrounding the appointment of former Acting DPP, John Rabuku. He argued that all charges approved by Rabuku should be rendered null and void, which would also affect the appointments of Acting DPP Nancy Tikoisuva and Assistant DPP Laisani Tabuakuro, the prosecutors in the current cases.
Concerning Saneem’s arrest on March 8, Sharma stated that Saneem was held at the Totogo Police Station for three days without proper written justification, suggesting a violation of the Bail Act. Sharma emphasized that such issues were prevalent and that defence lawyers should speak out against them.
Moreover, Sharma contended that the charges against Saneem related to electoral bribery should fall under the purview of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC) instead of the DPP. Magistrate Prasad responded that the matters raised were constitutional in nature, to be resolved only by the High Court.
Sharma maintained that any consideration of consolidating the cases should occur only after these issues are settled. Magistrate Prasad afforded the State 14 days to respond to the defence’s motion. Additionally, it was noted that Sayed-Khaiyum has submitted a bail variation application, which is scheduled for a hearing on August 14. The case has been adjourned as these matters await resolution.