Chief Justice Salesi Temo ruled that the $55,944.03 paid to former Supervisor of Elections Mohammed Saneem was a reimbursement of excess tax previously deducted from his salary, not a corrupt benefit as alleged by the prosecution.
In his written judgment delivered today, Chief Justice Temo examined a payment voucher tendered as both Prosecution Exhibit No. 22 and Defence Exhibit No. 1, which authorised the payment to Saneem on July 21, 2022.
The payment voucher stated that the amount was for “extra tax charged for back pay effective 15/01/21 and adjustment of PAYE and SRT tax as per the contract and attached details.”
The voucher showed that Saneem had been charged $110,840.73 in tax on back pay, with adjustments reducing the amount to a reimbursement of $55,944.03.
Chief Justice Temo said the document itself demonstrated the purpose of the payment.
“The payment voucher appeared to explain that Accused No. 2 paid extra tax in 2021, and the $55,944.03 was re-imbursement of the extra tax he had paid.”
The Chief Justice said the evidence suggested the money did not originate as a government benefit but was simply a repayment of money that had been incorrectly deducted.
“So, it would appear that the $55,944.03 didn’t come from the Government of Fiji, it was reimbursement of his money that previously was mistakenly taken from him, that is, in the form of extra tax paid.”
Justice Temo noted that this explanation was supported by the evidence of Fiji Elections Office Financial Controller Romika Devi during cross-examination.
He also observed that the payment voucher had been approved by both the Financial Controller and the Fiji Elections Office’s Director Corporate Services, Sanjeshwar Ram.
Based on those findings, the Chief Justice concluded that Saneem had lawful authority to receive the payment.
“The end result… was that Accused No. 2 had lawful authority and a reasonable excuse to receive the $55,944.03 that the State alleged in Count No. 2 that he corruptly received.”
Justice Temo said that, in light of that finding, it was unnecessary to consider additional allegations relied upon by the State in support of the charge of receiving a corrupt benefit.
The ruling formed part of the judgment acquitting both former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and former Supervisor of Elections Mohammed Saneem of all charges.
