Former Supervisor of Elections Mohammed Saneem has dismissed the Fijian Elections Office’s response to his legal demand, accusing the institution of misinterpreting the law and confirming he intends to pursue legal action against individual officers rather than the organisation as a whole.
Responding to the FEO’s rejection of his claim, Saneem said the Office’s defence was “once again, founded on an incorrect interpretation of the law and a misunderstanding of their own standing in this matter.”
He argued that under Section 18 of the Electoral Act 2014, any complaint of the kind at the centre of his prosecution was required to be made in writing to the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC).
“Section 18 of the Electoral Act 2014 required any complaint of this kind to be reported in writing to FICAC. It was not. Instead, it was taken to the Police, a body given no role whatsoever under that section. The immunity and independence arguments now raised cannot survive that simple fact,” Saneem said.
He also confirmed he would not be filing a single claim against the Elections Office itself.
“I will not be pursuing this as a single, joint claim against a faceless office. I will be pursuing my claims against each of them individually, on the basis of their own individual conduct and their own individual decisions.”
The comments come after the Fijian Elections Office rejected in full a legal demand lodged by Saneem following his recent acquittal by the High Court.
The FEO, through its lawyers Krishna & Co, said the proposed claims of malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office had “no legal or factual basis” and were “unsustainable in law.”
The Office maintained that its officers acted in good faith and within their statutory responsibilities, arguing that an acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically give rise to civil liability.
It also said criminal investigations and prosecutions are conducted independently by the Fiji Police Force and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and cited statutory protections under Section 3(3) of the Electoral Act 2014 for officers acting in the bona fide exercise of their duties.
The FEO further described Saneem’s legal demand as “an abuse of process” and alleged it was “bordering on extortion of monies” against the institution and the officers named.
The Elections Office has stated that if proceedings are filed, it and the officers concerned will defend the matter through the courts while continuing to carry out their statutory responsibilities.
