Counsels in Defamation Case to Provide Supplementary Submissions

By Lagi Keresoma

APIA, SAMOA – 01 SEPTEMBER 2022: The complainant and defendant in the defamation case which ended yesterday had been given another chance to submit supplementary submissions based on a case cited by District Court Judge Leota Raymond Schuster.

The cited case was Mathew Blomfield vs Cameron John Slater of New Zealand which Judge Schuster said had some similarities to the defamation case before the court against Tiumalumatua Maifea Fetu.

He noted none of the parties cited the case but he thought it was relevant to draw attention to as it has similarities to Tiumalu’s case.

Slater was charged with defamation for publishing slanderous information about businessman Blomfield, but the interesting reference the Court pointed out was that whilst Slater resided in New Zealand, the publication was done in America.

Slater claimed he was a journalist and operated the Whaleoil Online Blogger where he published information that he was found guilty of by a New Zealand Court.

At the start of Tiumalumatua’s defamation case, his counsel argued that a Samoan court had no jurisdiction as the crime was committed in Australia. Judge Schuster however ruled there was a case to answer. He did not give his reasons then.

Both parties have to submit their supplementary submissions on Friday 2^nd September.

Prosecution relies on Judicial Notice
The Prosecution has requested the Court to consider the Judicial Notice in coming to a decision.

He pointed out a specific comment made by Tiumalumatua on one of his video clips “Ana le uia auala le sa’o ma le tusa ai ma le Faavae, tou te le o’o i o” – loosely translated (if it wasn’t for a crooked and unconstitutional decision, you wouldn’t have gotten there) referring to a Court decision that declared FAST as the legal Government.

Of the 6 hours of video clips presented in Court as evidence, Prosecution relied on only two lines of Tiumalu’s comment which they claimed had intentionally defamed and caused harm to the complainant’s reputation.

Judge Schuster wanted the Prosecution to clarify why the statement was false and how it affected FAST – a political party.

Prosecution said whilst FAST may not be a person with feelings but its reputation as a political party was tarnished by the statement which reflected negatively on people.

“It is almost a year since the instances where such comments were made, the Government is moving on, were there any protests, uproar from the public to indicate their response to the comments made,” Judge Schuster wanted to know.

“No” said Prosecution.

“So how do you explain your point that the comment caused harm?” Judge Schuster asked.

Prosecution then went on about actual harm and potential harm to which the Court said to make up his mind as to which of the two was he relying on.

Prosecution opted for potential harm.

“Prosecution is asking the Court to do its job” defence claim
Defence counsel Fuimaono Sefo Ainuu claimed that Prosecution rather than presenting a proper case, was asking the Court to do their (Prosecution’s) job.

This is with regards to the request for Judicial Notice.

On the comments made, Fuimaono said they were Tiumalumatua’s own opinion voiced during a “sermon” which was on the theme “Ola Faasausili.”

He reaffirmed that they do not contest that a publication was made, but insisted that the defendant was “expressing his own opinions.”

“Does a political party have a reputation?” Judge Schuster asked.

“Yes” said Fuimaono.

Judge Schuster then set a scenario.

“CNN published false information which harmed the reputation of someone, but someone else presented the information. Can CNN be charged?”

“Yes” said Fuimaono.

Fuimaono then referred to the Fourth Estate to verify their stance but Judge Schuster said the Fourth Estate has their own Ethics and Code of Conduct.

He asked the Court to contextualise what the defendant said during the “sermon” where he prayed and urged people to support the Government.

He also submitted that Prosecution has not proven that the defendant published the information which he was being charged with.

Judge Schuster will deliver his decision on 9 September 2022