Former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and former Supervisor of Elections Mohammed Saneem have been acquitted by the High Court this morning.

Chief Justice Salesi Temo ruled the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The judgment brings to an end criminal proceedings centred on changes made to Saneem’s employment contract and a payment of $55,944.03, which prosecutors alleged amounted to an unlawful benefit.

The two welcomed the judgment that cleared them of abuse of office and of receiving a corrupt benefit, respectively.  

The charges stemmed from a second Deed of Variation to Saneem’s employment contract, executed in June 2022 while Sayed-Khaiyum was Acting Prime Minister and Chair of the Constitutional Offices Commission.

The State alleged that the document was signed without the approval of the President and enabled the Government to pay additional deductible tax arising from Saneem’s back pay.

Chief Justice Temo found the prosecution had not established the essential elements of either offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

A key issue before the court was whether Saneem’s employment contract and subsequent amendments had been lawfully executed under the 2013 Constitution.

The judge ruled that the President had constitutionally delegated that authority through the appointment letter, meaning Sayed-Khaiyum was authorised to execute both the original contract and the subsequent deeds of variation.

Justice Temo adds it was never the business of Fiji Elections Office officials to adopt what he described as a flawed interpretation of the clause before reporting the matter to the Police.

After considering the evidence, the Chief Justice found there was no evidence that Sayed-Khaiyum had abused the authority of his office.

Justice Temo concluded Saneem had lawful authority and a reasonable excuse to receive the reimbursement, meaning the prosecution failed to establish the offence of receiving a corrupt benefit.

The Judge also concluded that the prosecution’s case began with a misunderstanding of the wording contained in the second Deed of Variation.

The judgment notes that Fiji Elections Office officials interpreted the clause as requiring the Government to pay Saneem’s tax liability before reporting the matter to the Police.

The judge found that the interpretation was incorrect and ultimately formed the basis of criminal proceedings that could not be sustained on the evidence presented.

The duo also thanked their lawyer, Defence Counsel Devanesh Sharma and Gul Fatima of R.Patel Lawyers.

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions will now carefully review the judgment before determining whether there are sufficient legal grounds to appeal the acquittals.