By Lagi Keresoma/

Apia, Samoa – 23 June 2025: A document that suddenly appeared as evidence in the high-profile case in the District Court last Friday, sparked a heated exchange between the defence counsels and the two police witnesses prompting Judge Talasa Atoa Saaga to intervene twice to calm things down.

All three defense counsels questioned whether the document was genuine when it was presented orally by Inspector Salale Salale in Court last Saturday.

The document was first mentioned by Salale on Friday evening to which defense argued that they needed to see the document that Salale referred to orally, and the court granted the application and ordered Salale to present the document the following day.

Inspector Salale did present a document on Saturday but what was more confusing was that even the police lawyer and prosecutor, Leinafo Taimalelagi Strickland was not aware of the existence of the document.

It was noted during cross examination that for a whole year, police prepared for this trial, yet, the document was never in the file given to the prosecutor.

It got to the point where the defense counsel KC Richard Marchant and Salale were throwing strong words at each other and Judge Saaga intervened saying not to undermine the procedure and keep respect for each other.

To Inspector Salale, she reminded him of the oath he took to tell the truth.

“You are here to give evidence to assist the court and what we need from you is the truth, information to assist us,” said Judge Saaga.

She then called for a recess and for all parties to compose themselves.

Even the Prosecutor had not seen the document
The document according to Salale is a statement by the defendant Samuelu (Sam) Su’a which was taken while Sam, his wife Sivai Kepi and Marie Tusi were under police protection at Lynns Hotel in 2023.

The statement was prepared by another police officer, Sergeant Tuifaasisina Eliu Iakopo who also gave evidence on Saturday.

Sam’s lawyer Kathryn Dalziel informed Salale that Superintendent Tupai Sapani Leleimalefaga who was the team leader of the investigation, had already given evidence in court that the police investigating team did not interview Sam and Sivai and interviewed only Marie.

So, when Dalziel asked for a copy of the supposed statement by Sam, Salale said it’s in the investigation file now with their lawyer Taimalelagi.

Dalziel said that if the prosecution had a copy of the document, then it should be disclosed to the defence.

However, Taimalelagi advised the defence counsels that she had not seen the document until it was presented on that morning.

Dalziel told Salale that the “sudden appearance” of the document was to “discredit Sam and Sivai.”

“There was no intention to discredit but to use it to continue our investigation,” said Salale.

When asked why Sam and Sivai were not interviewed yet, they interviewed Marie, Salale said Sam and Sivai were content with the statement they already made when interviewed by former police inspector Li’o Fa’ataumalama Auava.

Dalziel told Salale that the document was recently produced to cover their “blunder” for not interviewing Sam and also suggested that the document was made after Tupai spoke with his team.

Salale denied it but Dalziel reminded Salale that Sam was an important witness but because Sam did not bow to their wishes, they were not interested in Sam anymore; then turned to work on Marie for four days until she “cracked under-pressure.”

No notebook records
There were no notebook notes or running sheet evidence to indicate that Sam and Sivai did not want to be re-interviewed or any information about the visit to the scene of the incident or why they left Sam behind and went off with Marie after the site visit.

Salale said what they had on the document was enough to do their investigations.

Dalziel continued her questions, but Salale said he was “tired of answering questions.”

On the 6-page document, everything is handwritten and on the bottom of the last page is a place for Sam to sign but was not signed.

Marchant asked Salale if knew that Lealailepule Rimoni Aiafi was a suspect in the first investigation to which he said “no”.

Salale answered “I don’t know” to every question relating to Leala until Marchant reminded him of the press release by the Ministry of Police regarding an investigation involving a Member of Parliament.

Marchant informed Salale that Police Commissioner Auapaau Logotitino Filipo had confirmed in Court that Leala was a suspect and he was being investigated but Salale said “I don’t know.”

Counsel Maposua Tanya Toailoa who represents Li’o told Salale that he and Tupai have contradicting evidence.

She informed Salale that even in their overall report which he, Salale compiled, had no mention of Sam’s statement and she pointed out that the reason was because the document was created recently.

She asked Salale if their investigation was to “disprove” Sam, Sivai and Marie’s statement, to which Salale said “yes”.

In re-examination, Taimalelagi asked Salale what he meant by disproving the 3 statements and he said all 3 statements warranted the charges which all the defendants are facing.

It’s not a statement but my own note, Sergeant Tuifaasisina Eliu Iakopo
When Tuifaasisina took the stand to give evidence, he confirmed that he prepared the document in question, but it was not a statement but his own notes confirming the sequence of his work on that day.

He was asked why Taimalelagi did not have a copy of the document, and he insisted that the original is in the prosecution’s file and he kept a copy in their dummy file in the office.

Dalziel informed him that all documents and other files are in the file with prosecution except this particular document.

Tuifaasisina swore that all documents are in the file but if it’s not, then he has no idea how the document could have disappeared from the file.

He confirmed that all original statements by all witnesses he interviewed are in the file.

Maposua asked him why he has the original copy of this document when it should be in the file with the prosecution.

“Who has the original files, is it the prosecution?” asked Maposua.

“Yes” said Tuifaasisina.

“Why do you have the original of this document,” Maposua asked.

“It was in the file,” responded Tuifaasisina.

“Who had the file,” asked Maposua.

“The lawyer,” he said.

Maposua again informed Tuifaasisina that their lawyer Taimalelagi had already advised the defense that she did not have that document and only knew of its existence when he presented it in court.

The case goes into the fifth and final week today.