The trial of former Supervisor of Elections Mohammed Saneem and former Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum continues to reveal intricate details regarding allegations of tax mismanagement and corruption. At the center of the legal proceedings is the issue of improper tax reimbursements. It is alleged that during his tenure as Acting Prime Minister, Sayed-Khaiyum signed a Deed of Variation and Addendum enabling the government to pay Saneem’s taxes without the necessary approvals from the Constitutional Offices Commission and the President. This arrangement supposedly afforded Saneem a financial benefit of over $50,000 in tax relief for his back pay.
Recent testimony from Lewai Karavaki, a Senior Manager at the Fiji Revenue and Customs Service (FRCS), emphasized that when an employer covers an employee’s taxes, as in certain expatriate cases, any tax refunds should return to the entity that bore the tax burden. However, Saneem’s tax returns, submitted tardily in November 2022, incurred penalties, contradicting proper tax protocol.
Karavaki’s review revealed no document granting Saneem exemption from taxes. Despite the back pay arrangement and Deeds of Variation signed, there appears to be a procedural oversight, as indicated by mismatched documentation between the Fijian Elections Office (FEO) and FRCS records. The defense claims that government payments did not cover Saneem’s taxes, which were withheld from his salary.
Testimonies from FEO officials described the tax payments arrangement as unorthodox. Financial Controller Romika Sewak and Manager of Corporate Services Sanjeshwar Ram mentioned the unusual payment process, with Ram highlighting an environment that discouraged raising concerns until after Saneem’s suspension.
Furthermore, the defense argues that Sayed-Khaiyum’s signing of the Deed of Variation did not have proper authority and questions the transparency of such government decisions. These revelations challenge the practices of governance and underscore the judiciary’s role in addressing potential misconduct and ethical breaches in public office.
The trial exemplifies the critical importance of adherence to established legal frameworks and may prompt discussions on ethical governance in Fiji, potentially leading to policy reforms that enhance transparency and accountability in the public sector.