The High Court in Suva has adjourned a civil lawsuit brought by former Supervisor of Elections Mohammed Saneem after finding a related criminal ruling could decide a core issue in the civil dispute. Justice Savenaca Banuve granted the State’s application to vacate the civil hearing date on 6 March 2026 and ordered the matter to be re-listed for mention after a criminal judgment expected on 30 March.
Saneem’s civil proceedings name the President of the Republic of Fiji, the Prime Minister in his capacity as Chair of the Constitutional Offices Commission, the Constitutional Offices Commission itself, the Solicitor‑General and the Attorney‑General. In that suit Saneem seeks what he says are unpaid entitlements arising from a variation to his remuneration under a Deed of Variation. The precise quantum of the claim was not outlined in court filings reported on Thursday.
Lawyers from the Attorney‑General’s Chambers sought the adjournment, supported by an affidavit from Jese Drova, a senior legal officer in the Solicitor‑General’s Chambers. The affidavit pointed to an ongoing criminal prosecution, State v Aiyaz Sayed‑Khaiyum and Mohammed Saneem (HAC 165 of 2025), in which Saneem faces a charge of receiving a corrupt benefit under the Crimes Act 2009. The criminal case concerns the approval and receipt of a tax relief benefit allegedly obtained under a second Deed of Variation dated 30 June 2022, which the State contends was granted without the necessary constitutional endorsement.
A ruling in the criminal matter has been listed for 30 March; earlier reporting on the criminal trial indicated the State alleges the tax relief arrangement exceeded $50,000 and that Mr Sayed‑Khaiyum faces a separate charge of abuse of office in relation to the same events. The Attorney‑General’s Chambers argued the validity of the contested Deed of Variation is central to both the civil entitlements claim and the criminal allegations, meaning the criminal judgment may directly affect the outcome in the civil forum.
Saneem opposed the application to vacate the civil hearing, arguing the supporting affidavit was invalid because its deponent was not a party to the civil proceedings, and maintaining that civil and criminal matters involve different burdens of proof and therefore should proceed independently. Justice Banuve rejected the objection to the affidavit, finding the deponent was acting on behalf of the Solicitor‑General, who represents the State in legal proceedings.
In delivering the adjournment, Justice Banuve said the question of the Deed of Variation’s validity was a common and central issue in both matters and that it was “just and convenient” to stay the civil proceedings until the criminal ruling is handed down. The court vacated the scheduled hearing date, ordered that each party bear its own costs, and directed the civil matter be re‑listed for mention to set a new hearing date following the criminal decision.
The adjournment effectively pauses Saneem’s attempt to recover alleged unpaid entitlements until the High Court resolves the criminal challenge to the Deed of Variation. Depending on the March ruling, the criminal court’s findings may streamline or significantly reshape the legal questions remaining in the civil claim against State entities.
Leave a comment