A Brief Note To Our Readers: Fijileaks has been somewhat inactive in recent weeks because your Founding Editor has been travelling abroad and therefore temporarily absent from his "tent on Oxford Street, London", the location from which, according to NFP leader Biman Chand Prasad, Fiji's political destiny is apparently plotted after "a few more bottles of beer." Consequently, publication may remain intermittent over the next weeks. However, readers, critics, political leaders and their media surrogates can rest assured that your Founding Editor will return to his Oxford Street tent to resume normal operations, armed with a laptop, Wi-Fi, and an undiminished appetite for asking inconvenient questions.
Electoral Commission Rejects Saneem's Call for Independent Investigation:
A Question of Process and Jurisdiction
The Electoral Commission of Fiji has formally declined former Supervisor of Elections Mohammed Saneem's request for the establishment of an Independent Investigation Committee to investigate the conduct of four Fiji Elections Office officials.
In a statement issued on 2 July 2026 and signed by Electoral Commission Chairperson Justice Usaia Ratuvili, the Commission said that after careful consideration, it had concluded that the matters raised by Saneem fall outside its constitutional mandate and should instead be dealt with by the Constitutionally mandated authorities.
The Commission's Position
The Electoral Commission confirmed that it had reviewed Saneem's request and was aware of the findings delivered by the Chief Justice Salesi Temo in Criminal Case HC 165 of 2025 involving Saneem and former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.
However, the Commission stated that disciplinary matters concerning the Supervisor of Elections and staff of the Fiji Elections Office fall within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Offices Commission (COC), noting that Saneem himself had already lodged a formal complaint with that body.
The Commission further emphasised that the appointment, terms and conditions of employment, and removal of former Fiji Elections Office officials are matters governed by the legal framework regulating the Supervisor of Elections and the Constitutional Offices Commission, rather than by the Electoral Commission itself.
As a result, the Electoral Commission said it would await the outcome of the relevant constitutional processes.
The statement also reaffirmed that the Electoral Commission remains the constitutional custodian of elections and is focused on preparations for the 2026 General Election.
A Procedural Rather Than Political Response
The Electoral Commission's response is notable not for what it says about the merits of Saneem's allegations, but for what it says about constitutional process.
The Commission has not rejected Saneem's complaints outright. Rather, it has taken the position that the complaints must be addressed through the correct constitutional channels. In effect, the Commission has drawn a clear distinction between its role as overseer of electoral processes and the separate responsibilities vested in the Constitutional Offices Commission regarding employment, disciplinary and administrative matters involving the Supervisor of Elections.
This distinction is important because Fiji's constitutional framework deliberately separates electoral oversight from employment and disciplinary jurisdiction over constitutional office holders.
Should Saneem Have Known Better?
The Commission's response inevitably raises a broader question: whether Mohammed Saneem, as both a lawyer and Fiji's former Supervisor of Elections, should already have been fully aware of these constitutional boundaries.
Saneem served as Supervisor of Elections for almost a decade and operated at the centre of Fiji's constitutional and electoral architecture. As a legally trained professional who worked extensively with the Electoral Commission, the Constitutional Offices Commission and other constitutional bodies, he would be expected to possess a detailed understanding of where disciplinary authority and investigative powers lie.
Indeed, the Electoral Commission itself noted that Saneem had already lodged his complaint with the Constitutional Offices Commission — the very body constitutionally empowered to deal with such matters.
That reality may lead some observers to conclude that the request for an independent committee was less a matter of legal uncertainty and more an attempt to seek an additional avenue of review or to place public pressure on the relevant institutions.
Looking Ahead
The Electoral Commission's statement effectively closes one avenue pursued by Saneem while leaving open the constitutional process already underway before the Constitutional Offices Commission.
For now, the Commission has signalled that it intends to remain focused on its primary constitutional responsibility: ensuring that preparations for Fiji's next general election proceed without interruption.
Whether Saneem's complaints ultimately result in further investigation will now depend not on the Electoral Commission, but on the institutions that the Constitution specifically empowers to consider them.
A Question of Process and Jurisdiction
The Electoral Commission of Fiji has formally declined former Supervisor of Elections Mohammed Saneem's request for the establishment of an Independent Investigation Committee to investigate the conduct of four Fiji Elections Office officials.
In a statement issued on 2 July 2026 and signed by Electoral Commission Chairperson Justice Usaia Ratuvili, the Commission said that after careful consideration, it had concluded that the matters raised by Saneem fall outside its constitutional mandate and should instead be dealt with by the Constitutionally mandated authorities.
The Commission's Position
The Electoral Commission confirmed that it had reviewed Saneem's request and was aware of the findings delivered by the Chief Justice Salesi Temo in Criminal Case HC 165 of 2025 involving Saneem and former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum.
However, the Commission stated that disciplinary matters concerning the Supervisor of Elections and staff of the Fiji Elections Office fall within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Offices Commission (COC), noting that Saneem himself had already lodged a formal complaint with that body.
The Commission further emphasised that the appointment, terms and conditions of employment, and removal of former Fiji Elections Office officials are matters governed by the legal framework regulating the Supervisor of Elections and the Constitutional Offices Commission, rather than by the Electoral Commission itself.
As a result, the Electoral Commission said it would await the outcome of the relevant constitutional processes.
The statement also reaffirmed that the Electoral Commission remains the constitutional custodian of elections and is focused on preparations for the 2026 General Election.
A Procedural Rather Than Political Response
The Electoral Commission's response is notable not for what it says about the merits of Saneem's allegations, but for what it says about constitutional process.
The Commission has not rejected Saneem's complaints outright. Rather, it has taken the position that the complaints must be addressed through the correct constitutional channels. In effect, the Commission has drawn a clear distinction between its role as overseer of electoral processes and the separate responsibilities vested in the Constitutional Offices Commission regarding employment, disciplinary and administrative matters involving the Supervisor of Elections.
This distinction is important because Fiji's constitutional framework deliberately separates electoral oversight from employment and disciplinary jurisdiction over constitutional office holders.
Should Saneem Have Known Better?
The Commission's response inevitably raises a broader question: whether Mohammed Saneem, as both a lawyer and Fiji's former Supervisor of Elections, should already have been fully aware of these constitutional boundaries.
Saneem served as Supervisor of Elections for almost a decade and operated at the centre of Fiji's constitutional and electoral architecture. As a legally trained professional who worked extensively with the Electoral Commission, the Constitutional Offices Commission and other constitutional bodies, he would be expected to possess a detailed understanding of where disciplinary authority and investigative powers lie.
Indeed, the Electoral Commission itself noted that Saneem had already lodged his complaint with the Constitutional Offices Commission — the very body constitutionally empowered to deal with such matters.
That reality may lead some observers to conclude that the request for an independent committee was less a matter of legal uncertainty and more an attempt to seek an additional avenue of review or to place public pressure on the relevant institutions.
Looking Ahead
The Electoral Commission's statement effectively closes one avenue pursued by Saneem while leaving open the constitutional process already underway before the Constitutional Offices Commission.
For now, the Commission has signalled that it intends to remain focused on its primary constitutional responsibility: ensuring that preparations for Fiji's next general election proceed without interruption.
Whether Saneem's complaints ultimately result in further investigation will now depend not on the Electoral Commission, but on the institutions that the Constitution specifically empowers to consider them.
COMING SOON: IF SANEEM'S CONTRACT WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID, WHAT ABOUT HIS ORIGINAL APPOINTMENT? Revisiting the 'Cutting Corner' Questions That Never Went Away
From Fijileaks Archive
