FORMER attorney-general Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum yesterday rejected several propositions that he had crafted and interpreted the law for the sole benefit of himself and former supervisor of elections, Mohammed Saneem.
These propositions were put forward by Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, Nancy Tikoisuva, during her cross-examination of Mr Sayed-Khaiyum, who denied any intent to conceal the payment under the first Deed of Variation (DOV).
He also denied appointing Mr Saneem as Supervisor of Elections despite his lack of experience, a move the State alleged was aimed at ensuring Mr Sayed-Khaiyum’s political survival. He dismissed the assertion as “nonsensical”.
Ms Tikoisuva argued that Mr Sayed-Khaiyum’s sole delegation was to sign the agreement approved by the Constitutional Offices Commission (COC) and pointed out that the additional clause under which the government agreed to cover any tax deductions was not mentioned in any COC meetings in 2022 or 2023, nor was it part of the recommendations from the Independent Committee.
The prosecution also questioned why the second DOV was not recorded in the COC’s meeting minutes of June 29, 2022, given that the meeting was attended only by Mr Sayed-Khaiyum and the COC Secretariat, and not the other commission members.
In response, defence lawyer Devanesh Sharma argued that the first DOV could not be tabled in the said meeting because the initial DOV was issued on June 30 of the same year, while the second DOV was issued in July.
Mr Sharma pointed out that the full CoC — comprising Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, Opposition Leader Voreqe Bainimarama, Attorney-General Siromi Turaga, Jon Apted, and Tanya Waqanika — were aware of the second DoV during the January 2023 meeting and raised no objections to the clause under which $55,944.03 was reimbursed to Mr Saneem.
Additionally, Mr Sharma also raised concerns about a possible miscarriage of justice arising from the Criminal Investigations Department’s (CID) transcription of Mr Sayed-Khaiyum’s caution interview.
During cross-examination, Ms Tikoisuva claimed that Mr Sayed-Khaiyum had said in his caution interview that he had drafted the second DOV, a claim he strongly denied.
The defence, having reviewed the recording, said the word “them” had been deliberately altered to “me”, falsely suggesting that Mr Sayed-Khaiyum had personally drafted the deed.
Mr Sayed-Khaiyum maintains that the case before Chief Justice Salesi Temo is an employment matter, and that he had not acted recklessly but in accordance with the Constitution.
Mr Saneem is expected to give evidence at the High Court in Suva today.
