Chief Justice Salesi Temo recently emphasized that missing critical documents in the investigation of Mohammed Saneem, the former Supervisor of Elections, stemmed from administrative errors rather than negligence by the Fiji Elections Office (FEO). This revelation came to light when the court discovered that Saneem’s appointment letters and contracts were absent from his personal file, which raised concerns.
Mesake Dawai, the Manager of Legal Affairs, during his testimony, indicated that his investigation into a complaint regarding Saneem’s tax reimbursement, amounting to $55,944 and authorized by then Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, was based solely on the documents available to him. These documents should have been held by the Constitutional Offices Commission (COC) secretariat, sparking suggestions from Saneem’s lawyer, Devanesh Sharma, for Dawai to have sought them from COC.
Dawai clarified that failing to file Saneem’s appointment letters, intended for the Prime Minister, was due to an administrative oversight rather than a failure on FEO’s part. Justice Temo agreed, identifying the issue as administrative. Additionally, it was revealed that Saneem’s appointment letters, dating back to 2014, 2019, and 2021, lacked specific contract terms. This oversight occurred as the President had delegated contract signing authority to the Prime Minister under section 135(3) of the Constitution. Dawai had contended that any contract amendments should be independently recommended, per section 136(2), but this argument did not hold.
As the trial continues, Acting Director of Public Prosecutions Nancy Tikoisuva and other key figures are preparing further submissions in anticipation of the case’s resumption on September 29.
This case highlights the intricate procedural challenges and raises significant questions about governance and administrative standards in Fiji. The ongoing trial, involving Saneem and former Attorney-General Sayed-Khaiyum, has been fraught with issues regarding ethical behavior and accountability. It underscores the critical need for transparency and strong administrative practices. If this case prompts reforms, it could lead to strengthened ethical governance and restore public confidence in Fiji’s institutional processes.