The legal proceedings involving former Supervisor of Elections Mohammed Saneem and former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum have taken a more complex turn with recent court testimonies. At the heart of the case are serious allegations of corrupt benefits and abuse of office, raising substantial concerns about governance and accountability within Fiji’s public sector.
Preetika Prasad, the former acting solicitor-general and secretary of the Constitutional Officers Commission (COC), took the stand to provide her recollection of a phone call from then-acting Prime Minister Sayed-Khaiyum. The discussion revolved around amendments to Saneem’s Deed of Variation (DoV), though it was vague on specific amendments needed. After returning from COVID-19 recovery, Prasad encountered a second “replacement” DoV with an unusual clause for the government to cover taxes on Saneem’s 2021 back pay—a clause, according to Prasad, not typically seen in government contracts.
Allegations have arisen that this arrangement could grant Saneem a tax reimbursement of about $55,000, purportedly executed without formal approval from the COC or the President. This revelation has sparked scrutiny over the transparency and accountability of governmental actions during Sayed-Khaiyum’s term as Acting Prime Minister.
The defense claims constitutional provisions might have allowed the President to empower the Acting Prime Minister to finalize contracts, suggesting the second DoV could be legally sound. The prosecution, however, argues that proper authorization processes were bypassed, deepening the complexity of the case.
As the trial unfolds, it sheds light on the broader issues concerning government transparency and ethics in public office. Key personnel, including financial and managerial staff from the Fijian Elections Office, have testified, revealing unconventional practices in salary adjustments and tax processing during a time of financial strain due to the pandemic.
With more witnesses slated to testify, the trial promises to further expose the nuances of government approval processes and the execution of official duties during crises. The case not only serves as a critical examination of Fiji’s governance structures but also emphasizes the urgent need for unwavering adherence to protocols to safeguard public trust. These proceedings are likely to ignite broader discussions on strengthening procedural transparency and accountability within Fiji’s governance framework.