THE Supreme Court has refused former supervisor of elections Mohammed Saneem’s application to intervene in the Cabinet reference case on legal appointments, saying it does not see that he has any special knowledge or expertise which would inform the debate on the legal questions the Court must decide.
Mr Saneem applied to be heard in the case, in which the Cabinet has asked the Supreme Court to clarify the legality of the appointments of Justice Alipate Qetaki and acting DPP John Rabuku.
In his application, Mr Saneem said he could offer vital information on the Legal Practitioners Act in his capacity as a former chief registrar of the High Court.
He said he was responsible for the Legal Practitioners Unit which presented the case against legal practitioners at hearings before the Independent Legal Service Commission.
Mr Saneem also argued that the decision of the Supreme Court could affect criminal charges brought against him sanctioned by Mr Rabuku.
However, in their ruling, Justices Sir Terence Arnold and Brian Keith said Mr Saneem could only be an intervenor if the test was whether someone had an interest in the outcome of the validity of Mr Rabuku’s appointment.
“However, even if that is the test for bringing an application for judicial review, we do not believe that simply having an interest in the outcome of the reference is the correct test for someone seeking to intervene in existing proceedings – let alone proceedings of the nature in this case.
“In our view, the real question is whether someone in Mr Saneem’s position as a person affected by a decision made by Mr Rabuku during his tenure as Director of Public Prosecutions has anything particular to contribute to the debate and which might help the Court resolve the issue on which its opinion has been sought.
“That brings us to the second basis on which Mr Saneem claims to have standing that is, that as a former chief registrar, he is able to assist the Court with the practical aspects of the application of the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act.”
The Court said that Mr Saneem was never confirmed as a Chief Registrar and had only acted in the role for a short time between 2012 and 2013.
“We regard it as questionable whether the narrow issue which the reference raises requires the Court to be informed of the practical aspects of the application of the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act.
“But should that be necessary that information can be given to the Court by counsel for the Cabinet on the reference and the legal teams of the persons and bodies who have been served with the reference.”
The case has been scheduled for hearing on June 19 and June 20. The Court will deliver its opinion on June 28.
