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 defendants appeared in Suva Magistrate’s Court before Magistrate Yogesh Prasad on charges of abuse of office.
Sayed-Khaiyum is facing allegations concerning the signing of a Deed of Variation and Addendum between the Government of Fiji and Saneem while serving as Prime Minister in 2022. Meanwhile, Saneem is accused of unlawfully receiving $55,944.03 from Sayed-Khaiyum.
The proceedings were initially intended to address the defence’s arguments against the motion from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to consolidate their cases. However, Mr. Sharma informed the court that various orders were being sought under Section 290 to uphold his clients’ rights to a fair trial.
One key argument from Mr. Sharma was the alleged illegality surrounding the appointment of former Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, John Rabuku, asserting that all charges approved by Mr. Rabuku should be deemed invalid. This claim would also affect the positions held by Acting DPP Nancy Tikoisuva and Assistant DPP Laisani Tabuakuro, who are prosecuting these cases.
Regarding Saneem’s arrest on March 8, Mr. Sharma argued that his client was held at the Totogo Police Station for three days without written justification, breaching the Bail Act. He emphasized the need for defense attorneys to speak out against such practices.
Furthermore, Mr. Sharma contended that the charges related to Saneem’s electoral bribery should fall under the jurisdiction of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC), rather than being managed by the DPP.
Magistrate Prasad stated that the issues raised pertained to constitutional matters, which must be resolved by the High Court. Mr. Sharma insisted that the consolidation of the cases should only be considered after addressing these constitutional concerns.
The Magistrate granted the State 14 days to respond to the motion brought forth by the defense. Additionally, it was noted that Sayed-Khaiyum has submitted a bail variation request, scheduled for hearing on August 14. The case has been adjourned while awaiting these outcomes.