- The 2014 Flashpoint: A Supervisor of Elections and a Short-Circuited Process
Back in 2014, we reported on one of the most controversial appointments in the post-2006 political order: the selection of Mohammed Saneem as Supervisor of Elections.
Here’s the recap:
- The post was publicly advertised. Applicants were required to have at least 15 years’ experience in running elections, a standard designed to ensure independence and competence.
- Thirteen people applied. Only three were Fijians. Ten were foreigners. None met the advertised criteria.
- Instead of re-advertising or revising the criteria, then-Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, and Minister for Elections Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum announced Saneem’s appointment anyway: a junior judicial officer with no electoral background.
- The decision was justified by “recommendations” from Australian and New Zealand officials. Saneem’s resignation from the judiciary and assumption of the electoral post were announced before the process was even concluded.
It was, in the words of our headline at the time, a textbook case of “cutting corner”.
The questions we asked then remain relevant now:
- Why were the criteria ignored?
- Why was the job not re-advertised?
- What did this say about the independence of Fiji’s electoral machinery?
History Echoes in the Courtroom
Fast-forward eleven years, and that same appointment is echoing through the corridors of the Fiji High Court.
In courtroom exchanges this week, Acting Director of Public Prosecutions Nancy Tikoisuva suggested that Saneem’s appointment was no accident, that it was part of a deliberate political strategy by Khaiyum to “ensure his own survival.” Khaiyum, facing abuse-of-office charges, pushed back, describing the claim as baseless and insisting that the charges themselves are poorly framed.
We’re not here to pick a side in that fight. The Chief Justice Temo will do his job.
But the fact that this 2014 episode is resurfacing today shows just how significant it was, not as proof of guilt or innocence, but as part of the bigger story about institutional independence in Fiji.
 Tikoisuva |  |  Khaiyum |
Acting Director of Public Prosecutions, Nancy Tikoisuva said in the High Court today (Monday) that the only reason Mohammed Saneem was appointed as Supervisor of Elections was to ensure that Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum’s political survival is secure.
However Sayed-Khaiyum said that it is a nonsensical proposition. This transpired during the cross examination of Sayed-Khaiyum and Saneem’s abuse of office trial before Chief Justice Salesi Temo. Tikoisuva said the reason she brings this up is because of Saneem’s employment history, as within two years of his admission to the bar after working in a private law firm he was promoted to Deputy Registrar in 2011.
She says by 2012 Saneem was a Resident Magistrate and within the same year he became the Acting Chief Registrar of the High Court of Fiji. The Acting DPP says one year after that he became the Permanent Secretary for Justice under Sayed-Khaiyum in 2013 and 2014 and with less than five years of being admitted to the bar, he was the Supervisor of Elections, with no experience of running an election.
She compared Saneem to someone experienced like Jon Apted and Semesa Karavaki, who have extensive experience in the legal fraternity. Sayed-Khaiyum then responded, saying being the Supervisor of Elections does not mean you would have had to run an elections previously because you need to have good administrative skill sets, and that is proven by Saneem’s track record of running successful elections.
Tikoisuva then interrupted Sayed-Khaiyum saying they are not talking about his accolades now but back then.
The trial continues tomorrow with Saneem taking the stand.
Source: Fijivillage, 6 October 2025
However Sayed-Khaiyum said that it is a nonsensical proposition. This transpired during the cross examination of Sayed-Khaiyum and Saneem’s abuse of office trial before Chief Justice Salesi Temo. Tikoisuva said the reason she brings this up is because of Saneem’s employment history, as within two years of his admission to the bar after working in a private law firm he was promoted to Deputy Registrar in 2011.
She says by 2012 Saneem was a Resident Magistrate and within the same year he became the Acting Chief Registrar of the High Court of Fiji. The Acting DPP says one year after that he became the Permanent Secretary for Justice under Sayed-Khaiyum in 2013 and 2014 and with less than five years of being admitted to the bar, he was the Supervisor of Elections, with no experience of running an election.
She compared Saneem to someone experienced like Jon Apted and Semesa Karavaki, who have extensive experience in the legal fraternity. Sayed-Khaiyum then responded, saying being the Supervisor of Elections does not mean you would have had to run an elections previously because you need to have good administrative skill sets, and that is proven by Saneem’s track record of running successful elections.
Tikoisuva then interrupted Sayed-Khaiyum saying they are not talking about his accolades now but back then.
The trial continues tomorrow with Saneem taking the stand.
Source: Fijivillage, 6 October 2025
 |  |
“Cutting Corner” (2014) Informs Today’s Courtroom Debate
Sub Judice Isn’t a Gag Order. It’s a Guardrail
Every time a powerful figure ends up in court, the same warning appears: don’t talk about it. It’s sub judice.
It’s a fair caution, but too often it’s misunderstood. The sub judice rule isn’t a blanket ban on public discussion. It’s a safeguard against prejudicing the outcome of a trial, especially in jury cases, by publishing material that could influence how the facts are decided.
That’s not what this article is about.
We’re not declaring anyone guilty or innocent. We’re not weighing in on the specific evidence before the court. What we are doing is something entirely lawful, and essential in a democracy: revisiting the historical context that shaped the institutions now being debated in open court. And in Fiji’s case, that story starts more than a decade ago, with a Fijileaks article from 28 March 2014 called “Cutting Corner".
The 2014 Flashpoint: A Supervisor of Elections and a Short-Circuited Process
Back in 2014, we reported on one of the most controversial appointments in the post-2006 political order: the selection of Mohammed Saneem as Supervisor of Elections.
Here’s the recap:
It was, in the words of our headline at the time, a textbook case of “cutting corners.”
The questions we asked then remain relevant now:
History Echoes in the Courtroom
Fast-forward eleven years, and that same appointment is echoing through the corridors of the High Court.
In courtroom exchanges this week, Acting Director of Public Prosecutions Nancy Tikoisuva suggested that Saneem’s appointment was no accident, that it was part of a deliberate political strategy by Khaiyum to “ensure his own survival.” Khaiyum, facing abuse-of-office charges, pushed back, describing the claim as baseless and insisting that the charges themselves are poorly framed.
We’re not here to pick a side in that fight. The Chief Justice Temo will do his job.
But the fact that this 2014 episode is resurfacing today shows just how significant it was, not as proof of guilt or innocence, but as part of the bigger story about institutional independence in Fiji.
Why Revisiting 2014 Isn’t “Interference”
Some will inevitably cry foul: “This is sub judice! You can’t talk about this while the case is ongoing.” That’s wrong, and dangerously so.
Here’s why this article is not contempt of court:
Sub judice is a guardrail, not a gag order. Democracies cannot afford to silence discussion of how power was exercised, how institutions were shaped, or why certain appointments mattered, especially when those same institutions are central to a criminal trial a decade later.
Why It Still Matters
The Saneem saga was never just about one appointment. It was about how rules can be bent, how processes can be subverted, and how control over key offices can shape political outcomes. It was about the tension between legal formality and political reality, a tension now playing out in the courtroom.
Whatever the court decides on the current charges, Fiji needs to reckon with the deeper question: How did we get here? The answer, in part, lies in a story we told eleven years ago.
The lesson: History doesn’t prejudge trials. But it does illuminate them. And when the past starts reappearing in today’s legal battles, it’s not interference. It's evidence of how power works.
Is Not a Sideshow. It’s the Story
The temptation, when criminal charges are before the courts, is to treat everything that came before as irrelevant, as if the past were merely background noise to the present drama. But Fiji’s political and legal history refuses to stay silent. The 2014 “Cutting Corner” episode wasn’t just a one-off act of bureaucratic convenience; it was a glimpse into a broader strategy of centralising control over key democratic institutions.
Today’s courtroom exchanges between the Acting DPP and the former Attorney-General are not happening in a vacuum. They are part of a continuum, one that began with the rewriting of rules, the sidelining of criteria, and the quiet erosion of independent oversight. Whether or not those earlier decisions were criminal is for the judiciary to decide. But whether they were consequential is beyond doubt.
That’s why revisiting the record isn’t interference. It’s accountability. Democracies decay not just through the abuse of power, but through the amnesia of the governed. If we fail to remember how the system was bent in 2014, we will never fully understand the stakes of the arguments being made in 2025.
History is not the sideshow to this trial. In many ways, it is the story itself, with two of its leading 'Bollywood' actors back on High Court 'movie screen'. And its for real, Fiji.
Editor's NOTE: This article draws on publicly available historical reporting and commentary originally published in 2014. It is intended to provide political and institutional context for current public debate. Nothing in this piece should be read as expressing a view on the guilt or innocence of any person currently before the High Court. Those matters remain solely for judicial determination.
Every time a powerful figure ends up in court, the same warning appears: don’t talk about it. It’s sub judice.
It’s a fair caution, but too often it’s misunderstood. The sub judice rule isn’t a blanket ban on public discussion. It’s a safeguard against prejudicing the outcome of a trial, especially in jury cases, by publishing material that could influence how the facts are decided.
That’s not what this article is about.
We’re not declaring anyone guilty or innocent. We’re not weighing in on the specific evidence before the court. What we are doing is something entirely lawful, and essential in a democracy: revisiting the historical context that shaped the institutions now being debated in open court. And in Fiji’s case, that story starts more than a decade ago, with a Fijileaks article from 28 March 2014 called “Cutting Corner".
The 2014 Flashpoint: A Supervisor of Elections and a Short-Circuited Process
Back in 2014, we reported on one of the most controversial appointments in the post-2006 political order: the selection of Mohammed Saneem as Supervisor of Elections.
Here’s the recap:
- The post was publicly advertised. Applicants were required to have at least 15 years’ experience in running elections, a standard designed to ensure independence and competence.
- Thirteen people applied. Only three were Fijians. Ten were foreigners. None met the advertised criteria.
- Instead of re-advertising or revising the criteria, then-Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum announced Saneem’s appointment anyway, a junior judicial officer with no electoral background.
- The decision was justified by “recommendations” from Australian and New Zealand officials. Saneem’s resignation from the judiciary and assumption of the electoral post were announced before the process was even concluded.
It was, in the words of our headline at the time, a textbook case of “cutting corners.”
The questions we asked then remain relevant now:
- Why were the criteria ignored?
- Why was the job not re-advertised?
- What did this say about the independence of Fiji’s electoral machinery?
History Echoes in the Courtroom
Fast-forward eleven years, and that same appointment is echoing through the corridors of the High Court.
In courtroom exchanges this week, Acting Director of Public Prosecutions Nancy Tikoisuva suggested that Saneem’s appointment was no accident, that it was part of a deliberate political strategy by Khaiyum to “ensure his own survival.” Khaiyum, facing abuse-of-office charges, pushed back, describing the claim as baseless and insisting that the charges themselves are poorly framed.
We’re not here to pick a side in that fight. The Chief Justice Temo will do his job.
But the fact that this 2014 episode is resurfacing today shows just how significant it was, not as proof of guilt or innocence, but as part of the bigger story about institutional independence in Fiji.
Why Revisiting 2014 Isn’t “Interference”
Some will inevitably cry foul: “This is sub judice! You can’t talk about this while the case is ongoing.” That’s wrong, and dangerously so.
Here’s why this article is not contempt of court:
- The 2014 events are matters of public record, not disputed trial evidence.
- We are not commenting on whether Khaiyum/Saneem are guilty or innocent.
- We are not speculating on witnesses, evidence, or judicial reasoning.
- We are providing historical background to help the public understand the broader institutional issues at stake.
Sub judice is a guardrail, not a gag order. Democracies cannot afford to silence discussion of how power was exercised, how institutions were shaped, or why certain appointments mattered, especially when those same institutions are central to a criminal trial a decade later.
Why It Still Matters
The Saneem saga was never just about one appointment. It was about how rules can be bent, how processes can be subverted, and how control over key offices can shape political outcomes. It was about the tension between legal formality and political reality, a tension now playing out in the courtroom.
Whatever the court decides on the current charges, Fiji needs to reckon with the deeper question: How did we get here? The answer, in part, lies in a story we told eleven years ago.
The lesson: History doesn’t prejudge trials. But it does illuminate them. And when the past starts reappearing in today’s legal battles, it’s not interference. It's evidence of how power works.
Is Not a Sideshow. It’s the Story
The temptation, when criminal charges are before the courts, is to treat everything that came before as irrelevant, as if the past were merely background noise to the present drama. But Fiji’s political and legal history refuses to stay silent. The 2014 “Cutting Corner” episode wasn’t just a one-off act of bureaucratic convenience; it was a glimpse into a broader strategy of centralising control over key democratic institutions.
Today’s courtroom exchanges between the Acting DPP and the former Attorney-General are not happening in a vacuum. They are part of a continuum, one that began with the rewriting of rules, the sidelining of criteria, and the quiet erosion of independent oversight. Whether or not those earlier decisions were criminal is for the judiciary to decide. But whether they were consequential is beyond doubt.
That’s why revisiting the record isn’t interference. It’s accountability. Democracies decay not just through the abuse of power, but through the amnesia of the governed. If we fail to remember how the system was bent in 2014, we will never fully understand the stakes of the arguments being made in 2025.
History is not the sideshow to this trial. In many ways, it is the story itself, with two of its leading 'Bollywood' actors back on High Court 'movie screen'. And its for real, Fiji.
Editor's NOTE: This article draws on publicly available historical reporting and commentary originally published in 2014. It is intended to provide political and institutional context for current public debate. Nothing in this piece should be read as expressing a view on the guilt or innocence of any person currently before the High Court. Those matters remain solely for judicial determination.
From Fijileaks Archive, 28 March 2014
Saneem's Appointment Cleared Way for Biman Prasad's Entry into Parliament
*The Appointment of Saneem as Election Supervisor paved the way for NFP leader Biman Prasad's election to Parliament in September 2014. |  |
 |   |
