The High Court in Suva has granted an application to adjourn a civil case filed by former Supervisor of Elections Mohammed Saneem against several state entities, pending the outcome of a related criminal matter.
Justice Savenaca Banuve delivered the ruling on 6 March 2026 after considering submissions from both parties.
Saneem has filed civil proceedings against the President of the Republic of Fiji, the Prime Minister in his capacity as Chairperson of the Constitutional Offices Commission, the Constitutional Offices Commission, the Solicitor-General, and the Attorney-General.
The case concerns Saneem’s claim for alleged unpaid entitlements, which he argues arose from a variation to his remuneration under a Deed of Variation.
However, lawyers from the Attorney-General’s Chambers applied for the hearing date to be vacated. The application was supported by an affidavit from Jese Drova, a Senior Legal Officer in the Solicitor-General’s Chambers.
The affidavit noted that a separate criminal case, State v Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and Mohammed Saneem (HAC 165 of 2025), involves charges against Saneem for receiving a corrupt benefit under the Crimes Act 2009.
The criminal matter relates to the approval and payment of a tax relief benefit allegedly obtained under a second Deed of Variation dated 30 June 2022 without proper constitutional endorsement.
A ruling in that criminal case is expected on 30 March 2026.
Saneem opposed the adjournment, arguing that the affidavit supporting the application was invalid because the deponent was not a party to the proceedings. He also maintained that the criminal case should not affect the civil matter, noting that civil and criminal cases involve different burdens of proof.
However, Justice Banuve rejected Saneem’s objection regarding the affidavit, ruling that the officer was acting on behalf of the Solicitor-General, who represents the State in legal proceedings.
The court found that the validity of the Deed of Variation is a central issue in both the civil and criminal cases, meaning the criminal ruling could directly affect the civil proceedings.
Justice Banuve said it was just and convenient to stay the civil matter until the criminal ruling is delivered.
The court therefore granted the application to vacate the hearing date, ordered that each party bear its own costs, and directed that the case be re-listed for mention to set a new hearing date after the criminal ruling.
