Court to Hear Case of Saneem

The Suva Magistrate’s Court will hear the case of former Supervisor of Elections, Mohammed Saneem.

Saneem appeared before Magistrate Yogesh Prasad yesterday for his application of Section 290 of the Criminal Procedure Act where he’s challenged the:

• Human rights matter that dealt with treatment of accused persons by prosecutors and police;
• Validity of charges and as appointment in the office of the DPP, including Rabuku as Acting DPP and senior officers appointed by Rabuku were illegal;
• Whether prosecution is in abuse of process as the offence Saneem was charged with is an electoral issue that only FICAC can investigate.

Saneem is charged with one count of abuse of office after he allegedly received a corrupt benefit in the sum of $55,944.03 on his back-pay from Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.

In the last sitting, both parties came to a consensus to have the matter transferred to the High Court.

However, yesterday’s sitting was set for both parties to submit to the court under what section of the Constitution should the court be allowed to transfer the matter to the High Court for.

Defense submission 

During yesterday’s proceeding, defence lawyer, Devanesh Sharma argued for Section 100 sub section 7 of the 2013 Constitution which emphasised on the Magistrate’s jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The section also provided that the decision could be appealed thereafter at the High Court.

State submission 

According to the Acting director of Public Prosecution, Nancy Tikoisuva, the orders they are seeking and the grounds submitted were matters of Judicial review which only the High Court could hear.However, section 290 of the CPA was a matter that the Magistrate's court could hear.

She argued for section 266, sub section 3 of the CPA which stated that the Magistrate’s Court could refer matters to determine to the High Court, which should be done within a month of its determination.

She also argued for Section 275 of the CPA where the Magistrate shall set out any question of law which the DPP may require to be submitted for the opinion of the High Court.

Mr Sharma told the court that Section 266 (3) as highlighted by the State was irrelevant as the court hasn’t made any determination.

He reiterated that there are provisions that allow the Magistrate’s Court to oversee the matter. However, because the State preferred the High Court under Section 44 (5) of the Constitution, they have consented to it too.

After all these were sorted, Magistrate Prasad allowed 21 days for both parties to make final submissions after which the hearing would be held on November 4.

Magistrate Prasad has asked that both parties also include their views on the consolidation of former Attorney-General, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and Saneem’s case.

All affidavits listed in both submissions will be made present on the day of the hearing also.

Feedback: Beranadeta@fijisun.com.fj