Saneem accused of ‘bad faith’ in deed of variation swap

The former Supervisor of Elections, Mohammed Saneem’s stern instructions to the Fijian Elections Office (FEO) to return his first Deed of Variation and replace it with the second were a show of bad faith.

FEO’s manager Legal, Mesake Dawai, stood his ground when grilled by the defence at the High Court in Suva yesterday.

Mr Dawai is the ninth and final State prosecution witness in the trial against Saneem and former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum. In this case, Saneem is charged with allegedly receiving corrupt benefits of $55,944 following an alleged unlawful approval by the then Acting Prime Minister and Acting chair of the Constitutional Offices Commission (COC), Sayed-Khaiyum.

During cross-examination, defence lawyer Devanesh Sharma questioned the internal investigation conducted by FEO regarding his client’s salary and taxation.

Mr Sharma also questioned whether Mr Dawai followed the proper procedures in investigating Saneem before lodging a criminal complaint with the Police.

Mr Dawai was also questioned about whether he was aware of the appointment letter endorsed by the then President, Jioji Konrote, allowing the Prime Minister to administer Saneem’s salary, benefits, and allowances.

In response, Mr Dawai acknowledged he had been mistaken about the signatures on the two Deeds and confirmed that both were indeed signed by Sayed-Khaiyum. He also admitted that he never cited Saneem’s appointment letter, as it was never in his personal file.

He told the court that Saneem’s repeated calls to the financial controller, Romika Sewak, expressing frustration over the large tax deductions from his new salary, were a “show of bad faith.” Furthermore, Saneem then instructed Ms Sewak and the Human Resource Department to return Deed 1 and shred any remaining copies.

Mr Dawai maintained that it was suspicious for Saneem to attempt to dispose of a Deed that had already been executed and for which money had already been paid into his account.

He agreed with Chief Justice Salesi Temo that Saneem’s appointment letter was indeed crucial. However, he noted that if the letter was only meant for Saneem and the COC chair, and Saneem knew that FEO processed his pay, he should have understood the importance of keeping a copy of the appointment in his personal file.

Mr Dawai added that it should have been Saneem’s responsibility to ensure it was properly filed.

While acknowledging that Saneem was never given time to respond to the allegations against him, Mr Dawai maintained that this remained a criminal case where a crime had been committed.

Justice Temo commented on Mr Dawai’s arguments, saying it was worrisome that junior officers had made allegations without citing or analysing essential documents. He reminded Mr Dawai, in his capacity as a lawyer, to always ensure that core sources and evidence are referenced before drawing conclusions.

Justice Temo said that he understood Saneem’s frustration in questioning his tax deductions, as he had been seeking a salary raise since 2014. Nothing was done until 2021, when a letter was sent by the Electoral Commission to the COC chair regarding Saneem’s request.

Justice Temo said he observed that Saneem had successfully overseen two general elections and, even at the same salary band, had managed to give FEO employees a two per cent bonus.

Mr Sharma told the court that Mr Dawai should have directed the complaint to the Office of the Solicitor-General, as this appeared to be a matter that could have been reconciled rather than treated as a criminal case.

The trial has been adjourned to September 29, with the defence set to present its case.