By Lagi Keresoma/
Apia, Samoa – 02 July 2025: Counsel Lucy Ofoia, representing Gagaifomauga 3 election candidate Faaulusau Rosa Duffy Stowers, has asked the court not to limit their consideration to what the Electoral Act says, but to at least consider other factors.
Central to her argument is the eligibility of two matais of Aopo village, Fa’aulusau Simi and Fa’aulusau Feauina who signed a statutory declaration to endorse Fa’aulusau Rosa as a candidate for the upcoming election.
Ofoia asked for an alternative, that should the court accept the Applicants submission that the two matais are not eligible to endorse the candidate, then the court should draw its attention to subsection 47 (4) of the Electoral Act 2019 and consider substantial merits of the candidate.
She noted that Fa’aulusau Rosa’s substantial merits include her qualification as a candidate not being challenged.
She was declared qualified in 2016 and was a Member of Parliament after the 2016 general election.
Opening a floodgate
Justice Fepuleai Amepersosa Roma who presided over the hearing with His Honour Chief Justice Satiu Simativa Perese, put to Ofoia that what she was asking the court to consider could open a floodgate to other cases in the future.
“It would not because it will be a case by case,” said Ofoia.
His Honour asked what happens when such situation arises to which Ofoia stuck to a case-by-case situation “and perhaps the court could look at it from a legal technical aspect.”
“Do you have authority,” asked Justice Roma.
Ofoia said “no” then informed the court that substantial merits only came up after the 2021 general election.
“And you are inviting us to be the first to do it,” asked Justice Roma.
His remarks brought a light-hearted moment inside the court room.
Applicant’s argument
Counsel Mauga Precious Chang who represented the Applicant Laaulialemalietoa Leuatea Polataivao Schmidt argued that the two matais had no legal authorization to endorse the candidacy of Fa’aulusau Rosa under a provision within the Electoral Act 2019.
The provision states that the candidate must be confirmed in writing by two matais who have served 3 consecutive years in the village council.
Section 8- Qualification of Candidacy: (i) (c) “registered matai title for a consecutive three (3) years ending on lodgement day.”
Witnesses for the applicant which include Aopo’s Pa’o Lili’a (Tuua), Vaitogi Tauaimoli (Mayor) and village secretary Fa’aulusau Petelo gave evidence that the two matais have not been to the village meetings Saofaiga Aso Gafua nor presented any monotaga for a long time.
The evidence
The evidence presented through the witness’ affidavits and oral testimonies state that Fa’aulusau Simi and Fa’aulusau Feauai have not attended the village meetings for a “long period”. But only appeared at the village meeting recently to inform the village of Fa’aulusau Rosa’s wish to compete in the upcoming election.
Fa’aulusau Feauaina does not attend meetings but does render service through a relative who resides in the village.
Fa’aulusau Simi who resides at Vaimoso in Upolu never attend meetings nor provide services according to Pa’ō and Vaitogi.
Faaulusau Petelo however said when he took over as the village secretary in 2024, he noted in the records that Petelo was stripped of his fa’a-matai responsibilities in 2023.
Vaitogi and Pa’o in response to Justice Roma’s line of questioning admitted that although both matais failed to comply with village laws to attend and render service to the village, none of them was banished from the village.
Justice Roma put to the witnesses that the only way a matai title or their fa’a-matai responsibility stripped is when they are banned from the village or a decision by the Lands and Titles Court to which the witnesses agree.
The Monotaga Book
Asked how they monitor the attendance at the village meetings, both referred to the village book of service – Api o Monotaga and the book of finance service – Api Monotaga o Tupe.
The Api o Monotaga is specifically to note the villages food preparations for guests – taligamalo and the Api o Monotaga o Tupe according to Pa’o, not only records the monthly lafoga for matais which is $10 but also record the people who attend the monthly meetings – Aso Gafua a le Nuu.
Pa’o said if a matai does not attend but present the $10 lafoga, that can be counted as the person was present.
It was noted in the Api o Monotaga that both Faaulusau Simi and Faaulusau Feauaina’s names were mentioned sometimes in the book.
The delay submission of evidence & respondent objection
The Api o Monotaga o Tupe was only represented on the morning of the trial by Mauga and His Honour Chief Justice Satiu Simativa Perese wanted to know why.
He said it is unfair for other counsels to be caught off guard by new evidence provided on the day of the hearing.
Ofoia received a copy the day before the hearing, but the second respondent, the Office of the Electoral Commission (OEC) did not have a copy.
In her final submission, Mauga emphasised the fact that the respondent did not contest her witnesses testimony against the two matais who signed the confirmation for Fa’aulusau Rosa’s candidacy.
The decision is to be delivered on 15 August.
