Sayed-Khaiyum, Saneem await February verdict in abuse of office case

Former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and former Supervisor of Elections Mohammed Saneem will know their fate next February.

The duo is facing charges of abuse of office relating to Saneem’s back pay of more than $55,000, alleged to be corrupt benefits.

They appeared before Chief Justice Salesi Temo at the High Court in Suva, where both parties delivered their oral closing submissions.

State prosecution's closing submissions

Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, Nancy Tikoisuva, told the court that the prosecution had proven all elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

She argued that tax deductions were irrelevant to the case, as the Fiji Elections Office (FEO) deducted the taxes from Saneem, leaving him with $114,492.74.

This tax was then given to Fiji Revenue Customs Service (FRCS) as part of its legal obligation in accordance with the Income Tax Act.

Ms Tikoisuva rejected the defence’s claim that the matter was an employment issue, stating instead that it involved a corrupt motive, specifically, the execution of a second Deed of Variation without following constitutional processes, which resulted in benefits to Saneem, a high-ranking public official.

She further argued that Sayed-Khaiyum was a civil servant under Section 4 of the Crimes Act.

“No one who works and receives pay from public funds is immune from criminal prosecution,” she said.

Ms Tikoisuva stated that Sayed-Khaiyum acted unlawfully by signing the Deed of Variation without being delegated any powers by the President.

She said that under Section 88 of the 2013 Constitution, the delegation of presidential powers was strictly limited to the Chief Justice.

She also cited testimony from Fijian Elections Office staff, including financial controller Romeeka Sewak, who said she had to retain a copy of the first Deed of Variation after Saneem allegedly instructed its destruction.

Both deeds were signed on the same date, although drafted at different times, and the second deed, referred to as the “replacement deed”, made no reference to the first.

Defence’s closing submissions

Defence lawyer Devanesh Sharma argued that the charges were misconceived and without merit, calling for their dismissal in full.

He said there was nothing sinister about the replacement deed, explaining that his client’s concerns were solely about the deductions from his approved back pay of $111,000. After taxation by FRCS, Saneem was left with approximately $350.

Mr Sharma argued that Sayed-Khaiyum did not breach Section 136 of the Constitution, asking, “Where in all this evidence was Sayed-Khaiyum bribing Saneem to influence him for the FijiFirst Party?”

He also questioned the credibility of testimony from Supervisor of Elections Ana Mataiciwa and Manager Legal Mesake Dawai, suggesting they may have “jumped on the bandwagon” without giving Saneem a chance to respond to the claims.

He urged the court to thoroughly review the evidence before delivering its judgment.

Judgment has been set for February 2, 2026. Bail for both men has been extended.