Prosecutions Inconsistency in Handling Defamation Case Noted by Court

By Lagi Keresoma

APIA, SAMOA – 27 AUGUST 2022: District Court Judge, Leota Raymond Schuster did not mix words when he told prosecutors Jason Tuala and Police Superintendent Sala’a Sale Sala’a of their inconsistency and not giving priority to the matter at hand.

There were several instances during the hearing of the defamation trial against Australian based Samoan radio host Tiumalumatua Maifea Fetu that Judge Schuster pointed out as inconsistency in the prosecution’s duty.

This was after Sala’a asked the Court for another adjournment as two of their main witnesses who were also complainants in the defamation case were not available to give evidence last Friday.

The witnesses were Members of Parliament Seuamuli Fasi Toma and Laumatiamanu Ringo Purcel.

Sala’a told the Court that Seuamuli had to leave “suddenly” to represent the Government in an event that took place in Savaii while Laumatiamanu had left for China.

“Have they been summoned?“ asked Judge Schuster.

“Yes your Honour,” responded Sala’a.

“This is not good especially they are also complainants in the matter,” said Judge Schuster.

He also emphasised that the reason why the matter was adjourned to was due to the Prosecution witnesses’ unavailability when the matter was called last week.

He also noted that the witnesses chose to prioritise something else over the Court’s summons.

The Court declined the application for an adjournment, and Prosecution asked to call another witness to corroborate the evidence of the complainant Va’aaoao Salu Alofipo’s evidence.

Va’aaoao is the Secretary for the Faatuatua ile Atua Samoa ua Tasi-FAST party.

No proof of summons
Defence counsel, Faimalomatumua Mathew Lemisio informed the Court that they had not been served with any information regarding the witness Prosecution intended to call, but they too wanted to cross examine the witness.

Judge Schuster then asked for a copy of the summons but prosecution did not have any.

Judge Schuster then asked prosecution if the intended witness was going to testify on the same facts Va’aaoao and on the same video clip to which prosecution said “yes”.

In the end, both parties opted for a stipulate agreement to tender the statement and not call the witness.

Defense counsel Faimalomatumua Mathew Lemisio and the defendant Tiumalumatua Maifea outside court.

Prosecution’s failure to conduct a proper investigation
The unavailability of Prosecution’s witnesses prompted the defence to apply for a no case to answer.

Prosecution tried to argue but given the ample time they had to prepare their case, Judge Schuster granted the application and allowed the defence to present their no case to answer argument.

Counsel Faimalomatumua pointed out Prosecution’s failure to prove that it was the defendant that published the video clip, and that all the information his client was accused of were false.

Prosecutor Jason Tuala countered by pointing out Va’aaoao’s evidence as factual and that Va’a had watched the video.

“Watching the video and knowing exactly who published the video are two different things,” said Judge Schuster.

He reminded Tuala that Va’aaoao testified that he did not know who published the video.

The question the Court was trying to find an answer to was “who published the video?”  

Judge Schuster then directed Tuala’s attention to the name of the program which the video clip was published, Tiumalu as the face on the program and the email, phone contacts and other information published underneath Tiumalu’s picture.

“Did you try to find out who the email or contact belongs to?” Judge Schuster asked the Prosecutor.

“No Your Honour,” Prosecutor Jason Tuala responded.

“How long have you had the video clip?” asked Judge Schuster.

Rather than responding, Tuala looked at Inspector Sala’a.

Judge Schuster then reminded Tuala of the role of the “officer of the law and prosecution.

He said the prosecution is held at a higher esteem by the public as they are the ones that the public rely on in their legal matters before the Court.

However, when the officer of the law does not conduct a proper and thorough investigation into any matter, then that is the failure of prosecution and the officers of the law.

Judicial Notice
Although Prosecution did not identify the factual evidence that they presented in Court, Judge Schuster asked if Prosecution could use the Judicial Notice to accept the evidence and Tuala said “yes”

(Note: Judicial Notice is used by a Court when it declares a fact presented as evidence as true without a formal presentation of evidence).

Faimalomatumua however noted that using the Judicial Notice does not change the fact that Prosecution had not proven or identified if the defendant did publish the video clips which Prosecution relied on.

Judge Schuster will deliver his ruling on the no case to answer application on Monday 29 August.

The case alleges defamatory statements made by the accused in his radio broadcast against the Prime Minister and the FAST Party.