Defence Counsels Oppose Witness Giving Evidence via Video

By Lagi Keresoma/

Apia, Samoa – 05 June 2025 – All three defense counsels in the high profile case now before the District Court oppose Prosecution’s application to have one of their witnesses give evidence via the APL system or through a video link.

The witness is Marie Tusi who is considered the prosecution’s key witness.

The defense counsels argued that Marie’s allegations against their clients are serious and giving evidence via APL or video system creates barriers.

Marie is the woman the defendant Samuelu (Sam) Su’a claimed was with him on the 21 April 2021 and they witnessed the accident that killed a young university student at Vaitele.

In her original statement, she supported Sam’s claim, but later confessed to police that she was not at the scene of the crime and is now the  police key witness.

She also alleged that the defendants Sam, Fepuleai Faimata Su’a and police officer Elia raped her.

These allegations prompted defense counsels to oppose seeking the court’s indulgence to have Marie give her evidence in chief in court and in person.

Sam’s lawyer Kathryn Dalziel shared her experience in New Zealand when such cases are presented and suggested that if the witness fears being intimidated by counsels, the defendants, her family, the media or public,  the defendants could be moved to the back of the courtroom or to another room to avoid any eye contact between them.

Fepuleai’s lawyer Richard Marchant argued that the prosecution knew about the allegations and the application now for Marie to give evidence via video was only made when he raised the rape allegations during cross examination yesterday.

“She (prosecution) knew the allegation but did not make an application,” said Marchant.

He pointed out that the case is heard in an open court and Marie needs to answer to the allegations against his client.

Maposua Tanya Toailoa, counsel for the defendant Li’o Faataumalama Auava supported her defense colleagues and pointed out that the initiative to have Marie’s evidence presented via a video is a move by the prosecutor.

“Marie would not have sought special privileges if prosecution had not put it to her,” said Maposua.

She then cited section 86(4) of the Evidence Act which speaks of a defendant’s right to a fair trial and the chance for defense to conduct their cross examination  effectively.

Maposua believes the defense will lose “effectiveness” if Marie’s evidence is given via a video.

Dalziel then addressed Judge Talasa Atoa Saaga, reminding her that “this is your court and you control it.”

Judge Talasa Atoa Saaga is to deliver her decision on the video application on Friday morning.