Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has directed that an appeal be lodged following a High Court ruling related to the dismissal of the former Commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC).
“Following today’s ruling of the High Court in relation to the dismissal of the former Commissioner of the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption, I have directed that an appeal be lodged,” Rabuka said in a statement.
He said the Government has noted the Court’s decision allowing a judicial review that challenges the validity of the Commission of Inquiry and will respond through lawful channels.
“The Court’s decision to grant leave for a judicial review challenging the validity of the Commission of Inquiry has been noted, and the Government will take the necessary steps to respond through the appropriate legal processes,” he said.
Rabuka said the outcome of the court proceedings reinforced confidence in Fiji’s democratic system and constitutional framework.
“I am encouraged that today’s proceedings reaffirm that democracy in Fiji remains strong, that the separation of powers is respected, and that there is no interference by the Executive in the work of the Judiciary,” he said.
He said the Government remains committed to upholding the rule of law and respecting institutional independence.
“The rule of law remains paramount, and Government will continue to uphold constitutional processes and respect the independence of our institutions,” said Rabuka.
Meanwhile, Fiji’s Chief Justice Salesi Temo has adjourned the delivery of judgment in the case involving former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and former Supervisor of Elections Mohammed Saneem to 30 March 2026.
The High Court matter centres on allegations that an unauthorised tax benefit was granted to Saneem in mid-2022.
Sayed-Khaiyum faces one count of abuse of office, with the State alleging that while acting as Prime Minister, he signed a Deed of Variation authorising the Government to pay approximately $55,944 (US$27, 972) in back taxes owed by Saneem.
Saneem is charged with receiving a corrupt benefit, accused of seeking and obtaining the tax relief without lawful authority.
The prosecution had argued that the agreement was a so-called “replacement deed”, created with corrupt intent to bypass required constitutional oversight by the Constitutional Offices Commission and the President.
The defence, however, maintains that the payment was a legitimate reimbursement for previously withheld earnings, describing the matter as an employment issue rather than a criminal act.
Defence lawyers have argued that no public funds were misused and that no constitutional provisions were breached.
Both Sayed-Khaiyum and Saneem remain on extended bail pending the ruling in March.
