Former Supervisor of Elections Mohammed Saneem’s multi-million-dollar civil action against several current and former State officials following his acquittal in a high-profile criminal case has been listed for its first call on September 16.
A Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim filed in the High Court in Suva on June 29 under Civil Action No. 193 of 2026 states that Mr Saneem is seeking $5 million in general damages, in addition to aggravated and exemplary damages.
Mr Saneem has named six defendants in the proceedings, including former acting Director of Public Prosecutions John Rabuku, whom he claims unlawfully sanctioned and authorised the charge against him. Mr Saneem claims Mr Rabuku’s appointment as acting DPP was itself unlawful, citing a Supreme Court ruling concerning eligibility requirements for the ODPP.
Current acting DPP Nancy Tikoisuva is also named as a defendant in her capacity as the prosecutor who conducted the proceedings against him in both the Magistrate’s Court and the High Court.
Former acting Police Commissioner Juki Fong Chew is accused of authorising and directing the investigation, arresting, and charging Mr Saneem without a reasonable basis. The writ also accuses Mr Juki Fong of failing to adequately supervise Criminal Investigation Department Officers Detective Sergeant Suliasi Dulaki and Detective Constable Tomasi Lagikula, who are also named as defendants for their roles in arresting, charging, and detaining him.
The Attorney-General is named as the sixth defendant as the nominal representative of the State, based on vicarious liability.
Mr Saneem and former attorney-general Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum were acquitted of all criminal charges relating to a variation agreement concerning Mr Saneem’s remuneration in June. The State has appealed the High Court’s decision to the Court of Appeal.
The lawsuit advances four causes of action, including false imprisonment. Mr Saneem alleges there was no reasonable or probable cause for his arrest because the criminal charge was based on an erroneous interpretation of the contract. He further claims detectives maliciously engineered a weekend detention by arresting him at 3 pm on a Friday, deliberately overlapping with his daughter’s birthday despite his good-faith offer to surrender on Monday morning.
He claims the defendants’ actions caused him significant mental distress, reputational damage, loss of professional income and substantial legal costs over a period exceeding two years.
Among the relief sought, Mr Saneem is seeking declarations that his constitutional rights were breached, and that the prosecution against him was instituted and continued maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause.
