The Suva Magistrate’s Court is set to hear the case against former Supervisor of Elections, Mohammed Saneem. Saneem appeared in court before Magistrate Yogesh Prasad to contest various legal matters under Section 290 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
His challenges include issues regarding human rights related to the treatment of accused individuals by prosecutors and police. He is also questioning the validity of the charges against him, asserting that the appointments within the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), including the Acting DPP, Rabuku, and other senior officers appointed by him, were unlawful. Furthermore, Saneem argues that his prosecution constitutes an abuse of process, as the electoral offense he is charged with should only be investigated by FICAC.
Saneem faces one count of abuse of office for allegedly receiving a corrupt benefit totaling $55,944.03 in back-pay from Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum. In the previous court session, both parties agreed to move the case to the High Court, and the latest proceedings focused on which constitutional provisions would allow for that transfer.
In her submission, defense attorney Devanesh Sharma referenced Section 100, subsection 7 of the 2013 Constitution, which underscores the Magistrate’s jurisdiction to handle this matter, allowing for an appeal to the High Court afterward.
Acting Director of Public Prosecution, Nancy Tikoisuva, argued that the orders sought and the grounds presented are typically matters for judicial review, which are within the High Court’s purview. She pointed to Section 266, subsection 3 of the CPA, which allows the Magistrate’s Court to refer matters to the High Court, to be done within a month of any determination. Tikoisuva also cited Section 275 of the CPA, which requires the Magistrate to present any legal questions that the DPP may need to submit for the High Court’s opinion.
Sharma countered that the section cited by the State was irrelevant, as no determination had been made yet. He maintained that the Magistrate’s Court had the authority to oversee the case, although they consented to the State’s preference for the High Court under Section 44 (5) of the Constitution.
After deliberations, Magistrate Prasad granted both parties 21 days to submit their final arguments, with the hearing scheduled for November 4. The Magistrate has also requested that both parties provide their opinions on the consolidation of the cases involving former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and Saneem. All affidavits related to the submissions will be presented on the hearing date.