Witnesses Allege Former Cabinet Minister Gave Money to Entice Voters  

Former Cabinet Minister, Gatoloaifa’ana Amataga Gidlow (in red) & supporters leaving Court.

By Lagi Keresoma

APIA, SAMOA – 10 JUNE 2021: Three witnesses in the on-going election petition filed by former Cabinet Minister Gatoloaifa’ana Amataga Gidlow, have testified that they each received money from the petitioner as an enticement for them to vote for her.

The petition is against Magele Sekati Fiaui who unseated Gatoloaifa’ana after 15 years as the Fa’asaleleaga No.2. Member of Parliament.

Invitation to Gatoloaifaana’s house
Witness Fuatogi Vave of Salelavalu resides at Falelauniu, Upolu and he and family travelled to Savaii on 8 April 2021 for the general election.

Arriving with his family at Salelavalu, two of his brothers-in-law asked if they could use his car and he let them.

Returning after their business, the brothers-in-law told Fuatogi that Gatoloaifa’ana wanted to see all the “sons of the village.”

“I went with my wife to Gatoloaifa’ana’s house and we were invited inside where we talked in the presence of other people,” said Fuatogi.

“Then Gatoloaifa’ana gave me $200 tala and another $100 because she realized I travelled from Apia,” said Fuatogi.

He also told the Court that as Gatoloaifa’ana gave him the money, she also reminded him of the election – “tautuana le palota.”

Counsel for Gatoloaifa’ana, Leiataualesā Jerry Brunt pointed out to Fuatogi that the reason why he went to Gatoloaifa’ana’s house was not because of an invitation but to get money.

Fuatogi responded that he knew there was money distributed to voters so he went.

The ST$300 talā was a political encouragement, says witness
As a taxi driver, Magele Taumaloto cast his vote early on election day intending to work later.

He picked up a passenger and travelled to Salelologa where he waited outside a shop while his passenger did his shopping.

Witness Magele Taumaloto.

He then saw Gatoloaifa’ana’s car reversing towards him and she called out. He walked over and she asked what he was doing there.

Gatoloaifa’ana was accompanied by a woman Magele did not know but he and Gatoloaifa’ana talked.

“The woman gave me money and Gatoloaifa’ana said “alu loa i o” (go there now) referring to where the village tapuaiga was,” said Magele.

He only realized the amount of the money when he got home and counted $300 tala.

When asked how he would interpret the $300, he said it was politically motivated so he could vote for her.

Leiataualesā asked Magele if he often runs into Gatoloaifa’ana or give him money when they met to which Magele said “rarely”.

“It is only during family gatherings for an event and when he goes to her resort for a beer and he gets free beer from her,” said Magele.

“That is why I was so surprised when I got this much money for the first time,“ said Magele.

It’s an offence not to vote
One thing all three witnesses had in common in their testimonies was “tautuana le palota” and they all interpreted it as a political saying to entice voters.

The third witness, 38 year old farmer Tumua Olive of Salelavalu who received $40 tala from Gatoloaifaana stood by his interpretation of it as being politically motivated.

However, Leiataualesa pointed out to Tumua that what Gatoloaifa’ana really meant when she said “tautuana le palota” was to encourage them to vote because it is an offence not to.

“To me she wanted me to vote for her,” Tumua insisted.

Counsel not a signature specialist
During the cross examination of Magele Taumaloto, Leiataualesā informed the Court that there were reasons they doubt that Magele signed his own affidavit, and so wanted Magele to sign his name again on a piece of paper just to verify his signature.

Counsel for the respondent Alex Su’a objected;

“Your Honour, my friend needs to lay the foundation as to why this is an issue, he is now challenging the signature when the witness had already confirmed it as his signature,” said Su’a.

Leiataualesā countered saying he could lay the foundation, but he needed to confirm the witness signature.

“I have reason to believe the witness cannot sign his name and that is basically the reason why I’m trying to get him just to sign his name and compare it to the signature on his affidavit,” argued Leiataualesā.

“I do not think that is an issue because he is now giving evidence in Court and that is his evidence,” said Justice Tafaoimalo Leilani Tuala-Warren.

Leiataualesā continued to argue that the witness credibility could be questioned.

Chief Justice Satiu Simativa Perese intervened and pointed out the difficulty in Leiataualesā’s argument.

“The difficulty you have with this issue is, you are not a signature specialist,” said His Honour.

Leiataualesā tried to point out that he didn’t say he was but His Honour advised him to put to the witness the consequence of perjury and asked the question again.

Counsel then withdrew the original application for the witness to sign, but then asked to verify if that was his signature on the affidavit.

The case continues and the respondent has two more witnesses as others will not be giving evidence.