Gaps in prosecution case, says defence in Sayed-Khaiyum, Saneem’s hearing

Lawyers representing former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and former Supervisor of Elections Mohammed Saneem have argued that the State prosecution has failed to present sufficient evidence to support the charges against their clients.

Today, both men appeared before Chief Justice Salesi Temo at the High Court in Suva for submissions on a ‘no case to answer’ application.

During the proceedings, defence lawyer Devanesh Sharma told the court that the prosecution’s case was riddled with gaps, filled more with opinions than hard evidence. He said Saneem’s request for a salary adjustment dating back to 2014 was long overdue, and there was nothing improper about an employee seeking a pay increase for commendable service at the Fijian Elections Office.

Mr Sharma argued that, like any other employee, Saneem was only liable to pay the tax required by law and that was precisely what he sought to ensure. He said that Saneem’s back pay of $111,000 for the year 2021 attracted a tax of $110,000, which explained his frustration.

He further contended that the matter was not criminal in nature but rather an employment issue, and should not have been referred directly to the Criminal Investigations Department (CID).

Mr Sharma maintained that Section 136 of the Constitution was not breached, but rather followed appropriately. He added that the Government did not raise concerns about the two Deeds in question, and that Sayed-Khaiyum was simply exercising due diligence to ensure Saneem was paid what he was owed.

He also argued that the State failed to prove any undue influence from Saneem, citing testimony from FEO’s manager Legal, Mesake Dawai, who admitted to being mistaken about several allegations against Saneem.

In response, Acting Director of Public Prosecutions Nancy Tikoisuva said the defendants who are both lawyers were interpreting the law to suit their narrative. She asserted that the two Deeds were executed outside the authority of the Constitutional Offices Commission (CoC).

Ms Tikoisuva argued that Saneem failed to refer further changes to the Deed to the CoC, and knowing that transactions had already been made under the first Deed, he instructed its return and shredding. She said this showed recklessness on Saneem’s part, and warned that such actions could set a dangerous precedent.

She added that the defendants’ actions undermined the Constitution’s role in upholding law and order. Chief Justice Temo is expected to deliver his ruling on the ‘no case to answer’ application tomorrow afternoon.