The Suva Magistrate’s Court is set to consider the case of Mohammed Saneem, the former Supervisor of Elections. Saneem appeared before Magistrate Yogesh Prasad for a hearing regarding an application under Section 290 of the Criminal Procedure Act. He is challenging several issues, including:
– The treatment of accused individuals by prosecutors and police concerning human rights.
– The legality of the charges and the appointment of the Acting Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), along with senior officers appointed by the Acting DPP, Rabuku.
– Claims that the prosecution is an abuse of process, arguing that the electoral issue Saneem is charged with falls under the investigation purview of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC).
Saneem faces a charge of abuse of office, accused of improperly receiving a corrupt benefit amounting to $55,944.03 in back pay from Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum. In the previous session, both parties agreed to transfer the case to the High Court.
Yesterday’s hearing focused on establishing under which section of the Constitution the transfer to the High Court should occur. Defense attorney Devanesh Sharma referenced Section 100, subsection 7 of the 2013 Constitution, asserting the Magistrate’s jurisdiction to tackle the matter, with the possibility of an appeal to the High Court thereafter.
Conversely, Acting DPP Nancy Tikoisuva argued that the requests made were subjects for judicial review, which exclusively falls within the High Court’s jurisdiction. She cited Section 266, subsection 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which indicates the Magistrate’s Court can refer matters to the High Court within a month of determination. Tikoisuva also referred to Section 275, stating the Magistrate should address any legal questions required by the DPP for High Court opinion.
Sharma responded by claiming that Section 266 (3) presented by the State was not applicable since there had been no determination made yet. He emphasized the provisions permitting the Magistrate’s Court to decide on the case, while also acknowledging consent to refer it given the State’s preference for the High Court under Section 44 (5) of the Constitution.
Magistrate Prasad has granted both parties 21 days to submit their final arguments, with a hearing scheduled for November 4. The Magistrate has also instructed both sides to include their positions on the consolidation of cases involving Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and Saneem. All affidavits linked to both submissions are expected to be presented on the hearing date.