Fijileaks: The press release sent to us is dated 20 August 2021. Notably, Rabuka's People's Alliance is missing as joint signatories. We wonder if the date and month of the letter is wrong, for neither Unity Fiji nor NFP leader BIMAN PRASAD, are responding to our questions. Anyway, what if FRANK BAINIMARAMA bins their letter, will the Opposition parties BOYCOTT the election and cut off any further dealings with the Supervisor of Elections MOHAMMED SANEEM?
Action Speaks Louder Than Words!
TONGUE TIED: Biman Prasad not responding to Fijileaks questions
The Supervisor of Elections (SOE) is appointed by the President on the advice of the Constitutional Offices Commission (COC) under Section 133 of the Constitution of the Republic of Fiji. The SOE carries constitutional and statutory responsibilities, inter alia, of handling voter registration and more importantly, managing what the constitution provides as the right of every citizen - the right to participate in a free and fair election.
Through this jointly signed letter, we are calling for the Supervisor of Elections, to be investigated for misbehaviour. The five Leaders of Opposition Political Parties implore you as the Chairman of the Constitutional Offices Commission to call a tribunal to investigate the SOE for misbehaviour in accordance with Section 137 of Fiji’s Constitution.
We believe that there are sufficient grounds to initiate the tribunal on allegations of misbehaviour of the SOE for the following reasons:
1. In November 2016, the Court of Appeal ruled against the Supervisor in an action taken by the Electoral Commission regarding the eligibility of two election candidates. The Supervisor had disallowed the candidacy of Steven Singh of the Fiji Labour Party while allowing that of Praveen Bala Kumar of the Fiji First Party in 2014. The Electoral Commission had ruled against his decision, but Saneem refused to comply resulting in the Commission taking the matter to Court.
In its judgment, Electoral Commission v Supervisor of Elections [2016] FJCA 159 (copy attached), the Court of Appeal strongly denounced Mr. Saneem for “insubordination” to the Electoral Commission and declared that he must comply with all decisions and directives given to him by the Commission in the performance of his duties. Such rebuke 2 from the Court of Appeal should not have been necessary. After all, as a lawyer the SOE should have been well versed with Section 76(3) of the Constitution.
The Court ruled that: “The Supervisor of Elections must comply with any directions that the Electoral Commission gives him or her concerning the performance of his or her functions”.
The word “must” convey the meaning that nothing short of full compliance would suffice.
The SOE in the 2014 case mentioned above had determined that he was not required to follow the direction of the EC because it was received after 4pm, a time he determined himself and not by any calculation under the Interpretation Act.
The decision of the Court of Appeal stands to date. This also means the SOE stands reprimanded. Subsequent to this direction, Mr. Saneem announced that he was appealing the decision to the Supreme Court but never actually did so. We view this as an act of deliberate misrepresentation on his part.
The insubordination by Mr. Saneem of the directive of the Electoral Commission is gross misbehaviour and, under normal disciplinary rules of the public service, should have led to his summary dismissal.
2. The Commission will also be aware of four other court proceedings in recent years that have gone against the SOE which include that against the Fiji First Minister Mahendra Reddy, and former SODELPA MPs Sitiveni Rabuka and Ratu Isoa Tikoca. The most recent
case is that of MP Niko Nawaikula.
3. In a landmark ruling on Tuesday 17th August 2021, the Court of Disputed Returns presided over by Chief Justice Kamal Kumar and Justice Angela Wati, found that the Supervisor had acted “wrongfully and unlawfully” in removing Niko Nawaikula’s name from the National Register of Voters because he had registered under his common name rather than that on his birth certificate. Nawaikula took the matter to court when he lost his parliamentary seat because of the Supervisor’s decision. This case caused considerable embarrassment as well to the Hon. Speaker of the House. The words “wrongfully and unlawfully” further amount to the constitutional term “misbehaviour” as stipulated in the constitution that warrants an immediate investigation on the continuous misconduct of the office of the
SEO.
We believe that the above cases collectively demonstrate that Mr. Saneem must be investigated for his removal from office for misbehaviour, incompetence, misrepresentation and, possibly bias.
His immaturity and haphazard decision making have brought disrepute to the high office of the Supervisor, and clearly indicate that he is not a fit and proper person to hold such an important constitutional office. These controversial decisions call to question his experience, independence, and impartiality in dealing with matters of immense importance as required under Section 7 of the Electoral Act.
3. We must state categorically that opposition political parties have no confidence in Mohammed Saneem as the Supervisor of Elections and his ability to discharge his duties with fairness and
impartiality.
Another important factor which needs to be considered is that he was not qualified to be appointed to the position in the first place and was not even an applicant when the post was first advertised in 2014. Notably, he had not even voted in a general election when he was appointed
to the post of SOE.
We suspect his close relationship with the Attorney General, who is also the Minister responsible for Elections, was the deciding factor in his appointment. This goes against every grain of public confidence that a government seeks to build with its people.
So, when public perception of partiality arises in such important appointments, it is incumbent on your office to ensure that such instances of nepotism are eradicated. In this particular instance, it could seriously undermine the conduct of free and fair elections.
In the interest of democracy, accountability, and fairness, we request that you as Chairman convene a Tribunal to investigate the above allegations which we consider to be more than sufficient to warrant his removal. We also urge you to advice His Excellency to suspend the SOE forthwith, pending the completion of the Tribunal’s investigation and findings under Section 137
(4) of the Constitution.
This letter is to notify you that all the undersigned political parties urge and require the Constitutional Offices Commission to immediately appoint a Tribunal to investigate the removal of Mr. Saneem from the position of the Supervisor of Elections in accordance with Section 137 (3) (a) (i) of Fiji’s Constitution.
We look forward to your early response to our request.
Through this jointly signed letter, we are calling for the Supervisor of Elections, to be investigated for misbehaviour. The five Leaders of Opposition Political Parties implore you as the Chairman of the Constitutional Offices Commission to call a tribunal to investigate the SOE for misbehaviour in accordance with Section 137 of Fiji’s Constitution.
We believe that there are sufficient grounds to initiate the tribunal on allegations of misbehaviour of the SOE for the following reasons:
1. In November 2016, the Court of Appeal ruled against the Supervisor in an action taken by the Electoral Commission regarding the eligibility of two election candidates. The Supervisor had disallowed the candidacy of Steven Singh of the Fiji Labour Party while allowing that of Praveen Bala Kumar of the Fiji First Party in 2014. The Electoral Commission had ruled against his decision, but Saneem refused to comply resulting in the Commission taking the matter to Court.
In its judgment, Electoral Commission v Supervisor of Elections [2016] FJCA 159 (copy attached), the Court of Appeal strongly denounced Mr. Saneem for “insubordination” to the Electoral Commission and declared that he must comply with all decisions and directives given to him by the Commission in the performance of his duties. Such rebuke 2 from the Court of Appeal should not have been necessary. After all, as a lawyer the SOE should have been well versed with Section 76(3) of the Constitution.
The Court ruled that: “The Supervisor of Elections must comply with any directions that the Electoral Commission gives him or her concerning the performance of his or her functions”.
The word “must” convey the meaning that nothing short of full compliance would suffice.
The SOE in the 2014 case mentioned above had determined that he was not required to follow the direction of the EC because it was received after 4pm, a time he determined himself and not by any calculation under the Interpretation Act.
The decision of the Court of Appeal stands to date. This also means the SOE stands reprimanded. Subsequent to this direction, Mr. Saneem announced that he was appealing the decision to the Supreme Court but never actually did so. We view this as an act of deliberate misrepresentation on his part.
The insubordination by Mr. Saneem of the directive of the Electoral Commission is gross misbehaviour and, under normal disciplinary rules of the public service, should have led to his summary dismissal.
2. The Commission will also be aware of four other court proceedings in recent years that have gone against the SOE which include that against the Fiji First Minister Mahendra Reddy, and former SODELPA MPs Sitiveni Rabuka and Ratu Isoa Tikoca. The most recent
case is that of MP Niko Nawaikula.
3. In a landmark ruling on Tuesday 17th August 2021, the Court of Disputed Returns presided over by Chief Justice Kamal Kumar and Justice Angela Wati, found that the Supervisor had acted “wrongfully and unlawfully” in removing Niko Nawaikula’s name from the National Register of Voters because he had registered under his common name rather than that on his birth certificate. Nawaikula took the matter to court when he lost his parliamentary seat because of the Supervisor’s decision. This case caused considerable embarrassment as well to the Hon. Speaker of the House. The words “wrongfully and unlawfully” further amount to the constitutional term “misbehaviour” as stipulated in the constitution that warrants an immediate investigation on the continuous misconduct of the office of the
SEO.
We believe that the above cases collectively demonstrate that Mr. Saneem must be investigated for his removal from office for misbehaviour, incompetence, misrepresentation and, possibly bias.
His immaturity and haphazard decision making have brought disrepute to the high office of the Supervisor, and clearly indicate that he is not a fit and proper person to hold such an important constitutional office. These controversial decisions call to question his experience, independence, and impartiality in dealing with matters of immense importance as required under Section 7 of the Electoral Act.
3. We must state categorically that opposition political parties have no confidence in Mohammed Saneem as the Supervisor of Elections and his ability to discharge his duties with fairness and
impartiality.
Another important factor which needs to be considered is that he was not qualified to be appointed to the position in the first place and was not even an applicant when the post was first advertised in 2014. Notably, he had not even voted in a general election when he was appointed
to the post of SOE.
We suspect his close relationship with the Attorney General, who is also the Minister responsible for Elections, was the deciding factor in his appointment. This goes against every grain of public confidence that a government seeks to build with its people.
So, when public perception of partiality arises in such important appointments, it is incumbent on your office to ensure that such instances of nepotism are eradicated. In this particular instance, it could seriously undermine the conduct of free and fair elections.
In the interest of democracy, accountability, and fairness, we request that you as Chairman convene a Tribunal to investigate the above allegations which we consider to be more than sufficient to warrant his removal. We also urge you to advice His Excellency to suspend the SOE forthwith, pending the completion of the Tribunal’s investigation and findings under Section 137
(4) of the Constitution.
This letter is to notify you that all the undersigned political parties urge and require the Constitutional Offices Commission to immediately appoint a Tribunal to investigate the removal of Mr. Saneem from the position of the Supervisor of Elections in accordance with Section 137 (3) (a) (i) of Fiji’s Constitution.
We look forward to your early response to our request.
The Sunday Times published the letter on 12 September 2021. Saneem had approved Rabuka's People's Alliance on 5 September
