The Suva High Court has determined that there is sufficient evidence for former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and former Supervisor of Elections Mohammed Saneem to answer to the charges against them. The ruling was made by Judge Justice Salesi Temo, who meticulously reviewed all the documentary evidence, agreed facts, and case laws relevant to the matter.
The prosecution concluded its case by presenting both oral and documentary evidence, and the defense also introduced documentary evidence through cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. The High Court’s decision was guided by sections 231(1) and (2) of the Criminal Procedures Act 2009, which pertain to the consideration of no-case-to-answer submissions.
The trial centers on allegations of abuse of office against Sayed-Khaiyum and accusations that Saneem received a corrupt benefit. Specifically, it is claimed that, while acting as Prime Minister and Chair of the Constitutional Offices Commission in 2022, Sayed-Khaiyum improperly agreed to a Deed of Variation and Addendum allowing Saneem to evade certain deductible taxes on his back pay. This agreement reportedly lacked the requisite approval from the President or the Constitutional Offices Commission.
Furthermore, Saneem is accused of unlawfully requesting and obtaining over $50,000 in deductible tax relief on his back pay through arrangements made by Sayed-Khaiyum. These actions allegedly took place between June 1 and July 31, 2022.
Given this ruling, both defendants are required to reveal their defense strategy in the subsequent court session. This case is significant as it delves into the ethics of public officeholders and the imperative of maintaining transparency and accountability within government operations. As the proceedings continue, there is hope for a resolution that upholds justice and reinforces the principles of integrity in public service. The outcome of this case is being closely monitored, as it holds implications for public trust and governance standards.