Legal Showdown: High-Stakes Hearing Looms for Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and Mohammed Saneem

The Suva Magistrate’s Court is anticipating in-depth submissions from both sides regarding the case involving former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and former Supervisor of Elections Mohammed Saneem.

Sayed-Khaiyum was excused from court for medical reasons, while Saneem appeared before Magistrate Yogesh Prasad. The court is considering the State’s application to consolidate the cases of both individuals, along with a separate application raised by Saneem.

This application pertains to Section 290 (e) (f) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, in which Saneem questions the legitimacy of charges approved by former acting director of Public Prosecution, John Rabuku, including his own charges.

During the proceedings, defense attorney Devanesh Sharma argued that their application should be prioritized as it could influence whether the other matters should even be addressed. Sharma referenced a previous Supreme Court ruling regarding Saneem and Sayed-Khaiyum’s intervention request in April, indicating that they were advised to await the ruling on this matter for potential options.

He asserted that, under Section 265 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Magistrate’s Court has the authority to review the issue. Sharma warned that if the case is transferred to the High Court, it would result in delays concerning Sayed-Khaiyum’s case.

Acting Director of Public Prosecution Nancy Tikoisuva stated that this issue is judicial and constitutional in nature, which is the sole responsibility of the High Court. Magistrate Prasad concurred, indicating that any decision he makes could be subject to appeal.

Tikoisuva also noted that because the matter arose in the context of consolidation, it would compel Magistrate Prasad to reference Section 290 in his ruling. The Magistrate requested that both sides clarify the issues they wish to address in their submissions, emphasizing the need for a precise legal discussion without extraneous documents.

Both parties have been given a deadline of September 17 to submit their responses, with a hearing scheduled for September 25 at 11:30 AM.

Popular Categories

Latest News

Search the website