Former AG agrees former PM’s behaviour against Judiciary was scandalous  

By Lagi Keresoma/

Apia, APIA – 24 June 2024 – During cross-examination of former Attorney General Savalenoa Mareva Betham-Annandale today, presiding Justice Rhys Harrison pointed to the Supreme Court judgment of 23 March 2022 on the FAST vs Tuilaepa and others cases.

He pointed out that the Supreme Court judgement on contempt referred to “some serious scandalous behaviour” by former Prime Minister, Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi.

“Do you agree with the judgement?” asked Justice Harrison.

Savalenoa said she would take what the judgement said.

Justice Harrison was referring to Tuilaepa’s comments made against the Judiciary where according to the judgement were “scandalous” and he was found of contempt of court.

He also picked up Savalenoa’s testimony that she did not provide a press release or speak out publicly against such comments made by Tuilaepa or the public against the Judiciary.

Savalenoa admitted that her role as the Attorney General was to protect the Judiciary. However, she was silent on these comments.

“If you did not speak out publicly to protect the Judiciary, who would have?” asked Justice Harrison.

“The Law Society given the situation I was in at the time,” she said.

The situation she referred to was the legal challenge by the FAST Government against her that was already before the Court hence her silence and inaction on some of the issues.

The difference between crooked and incorrect
It is the first of the two days hearing now before the Supreme Court based on Savalenoa’s $650,000 lawsuit against her dismissal by Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Mataafa in September 2022.

Counsels Taulapapa Brenda Heather-Latu and Rodney Keith are representing Fiame at the trial.

Taulapapa drilled Savalenoa on some of the grounds which her dismissal was based on such as disrespecting the Judiciary.

One was the allegation in her letter to Fiame was “pi’opi’o le fa’amasinoga.” When asked to translate “pi’opi’o into English, she said “pi’opi’o” means “incorrect”.

However, Taulapapa noted a different translation of the word pi’opi’o which means “crooked” and what Savalenoa was actually saying was that the “Court was crooked in their decision”.

Taulapapa also pointed out another allegation which is “Se’i va’ai la i le mea e o’o iai le fa’amasinoga.”

Savalenoa said her comments were general and was not specific to anyone.

Why she did not respond to the Prime Minister’s directive
Savaleanoa was asked why she never responded to a directive from the Prime Minister on issues of concern Fiame raised.

At the time, the HRPP leader and others have openly criticised and accused the Judiciary of being biased and colluding with the new FAST Government.

“I wrote to her (PM) and asked for a meeting to discuss what she raised,” said Savalenoa.

“She did not ask for a meeting she asked for you to respond,” said Taulapapa.

Some of the issues raised in Fiame’s letter included the three proclamations by the Head of State, the possibility of revoking the general election results and the public assaults on the Judiciary by the HRPP members.

Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Mataafa leaving court after her testimony.

Fiame testifies in court
Fiame took the stand and explained that as the leader of Government and the Minister responsible for the Office of the Attorney General, she wanted to know what steps if any the Attorney General has taken or will take regarding the issue at hand.

She also wanted to know if Savalenoa could work with the new Government or can be trusted. However, her silence on matters of concern and inaction prompted her suspension and later dismissal in September 2021.

Savalenoa’s lawyer Kings Counsel Dr. Rodney Harrison raised the position of the Head of State and Tuilaepa as the caretaker Prime Minister then, that if they had decided to revoke the general election results; it would be too late to get advice from the Attorney General.

Fiame responded that the Attorney General was particularly silent on this issue.

Taulapapa asked Savalenoa why there was a need to check out what Fiame directed her to do as Fiame was her Minister.

Savalenoa said the process was to check.

Three assumptions were noted by Dr. Harrison in Fiame’s letter and should those assumptions be incorrect, then it cannot stand against her.

“Who decides such things? The Court?” asked Fiame.

The AG is the legal adviser
The other matter which counsels spent awhile on were several proclamations by the Head of State which includes the proclamation for Parliament not to convene on 24 May 2021.

The proclamation was the focus of in-chambers hearing on Sunday 23 May at 9.00am.

It was noted in Court today that Savalenoa “walked out” of the hearing and by doing that, “disrespected” the Court.

However, Savalenoa said she was unaware of the proceedings in Court that morning, but attended in-chambers meeting so she could understand what was happening.

She also clarified that she did not “walk out” but asked for “leave of the court” then left.

Fiame testified that Savalenoa as Attorney General should have acted rather that doing what she has been told and even the Government is unaware if Savalenoa gave advice regarding the proclamations, or if she was aware of them.

Whatever the case, as the Attorney General, her role is to give advice and not do what she is told, especially at such critical time of uncertainty, said Fiame.

“I do question the rightfulness of those actions taken and of course we took it to court,” said Fiame.

Revoking the General Election result is no light matter
Dr. Harrison continues to drill Fiame on the proclamations and the Courts decision of 23 May 2021 for Parliament to convene.

He pointed out that there was no foundation of Fiame’s assumption that advice was either given or not.

“To agree to revoke a national election result and to prevent Parliament from meeting after the Court determination is not a light matter,” said Fiame.

Fiame thought Savalenoa would respond but never did, but claimed her “advice was privileged.”

6 grounds for urgent dismissal
In Fiame’s letter of dismissal to Savalenoa, she listed 6 grounds on which her decision was based on, and some of these grounds included disrespect of the Judiciary & recusal of judges, lack of trust and inactiveness on proclamations made by the HOS and comments, and the activation of article 44 (1a) on the 10% for women representation in parliament.

Dr. Harrison drilled Fiame on why there was an urgency to dismiss Savalenoa and Fiame referred counsel to the grounds of dismissal in her letter.

“Yes, but why was there an urgency to dismiss her?” asked Dr. Harrison.

Savalenoa was dismissed immediately after her suspension in September 2021.

Fiame said one of the reasons was because Savalenoa represented the Electoral Commissioner in court.

Earlier on when Taulapapa cross examined Savalenoa, she claimed that the authority to activate Article 44 (1A) is with the Electoral Commissioner and she only found out about the activation after it was done.

She did not give any advice to activate it as that authority is with the Electoral Commissioner.

The point Fiame wanted to bring forth was that the country was in a crisis situation with a hung Government and yet the Electoral Commissioner was changing positions on the number of women under the 10% quota.

Dr, Harrison said the Office of the Attorney General represents the Government as client and was appropriate for the Electoral Commissioner, a Government entity to be represented by the Attorney General.

He then asked if Fiame had written to the Acting Attorney General at the time regarding the issues she raised with Savalenoa and Fiame said “no”.

She thought the Attorney General was aware of the issues.

Asked why she did not raise it with the newly appointed AG then, Fiame said the matter was already in progress in Court.

The case continues.