Judge Schuster blasts HRPP lawyers for lack of professional legal impartiality

“This, in my view shows an absence of professional legal impartiality, professional legal independence, professional legal analysis and professional legal intuition so far as to assessing the crucial and specific nature of the election process in each of the four Applicants unique constituency of which the law firms represented.” – Judge Mata’utia Raymond Schuster.

By Lagi Keresoma/

Apia. Samoa – 13 September 2025: District Court Judge Mata’utia Raymond Schuster did not mix words when he called on the lack of impartiality and independence of counsels who represented the Human Rights Protection Party (HRPP) candidates who applied for recounts of their election results from the 29 August general election.

Judge Schuster was referring to the recounts of four constituencies before him which included Fa’asaleleaga 1, Fa’asalelelaga 5, A’ana Alofi 3 and Alataua i Sisifo which had quite substantial differences between the winning candidate and the Applicants.

Some of the constituencies that applied for a recount have more than 100 votes difference such as A’ana Alofi 3 which has a difference of 423 votes between the winner and the applicant.

The constituency was represented by lawyer Lucy Sio Ofoia and the application was withdrawn on Thursday morning.

Alataua i Sisifo which had a 45 votes difference  was represented by Leone Sio Mailo.

Both Fa’asaleleaga 1, with 141 votes difference  and Fa’asalelelaga 5, 80 votes difference were represented by Alex Su’a.

“This, in my view shows an absence of professional legal impartiality, professional legal independence, profession legal analysis and professional legal intuition so far as of the assessing the crucial and specific nature of the election of process in each of the four Applicants unique constituency of which the law firms represented,” said Judge Schuster in his written decision.

Judge Schuster said “as a Judicial Officer and part of the third branch of a democratic government, and after dealing with the four recounts, he had to raise a point of concern relating to all applications.”

Judge Schuster could not find any evidence accusing the Office of the Electoral Office (OEC) of biasness or incompetence.

He noted that all three law firms which represented the Applicants provided affidavit materials “with exactly the same annexes  and exactly the same grounds for systemic issues to question the official count of the Second Respondent” the Office of the Electoral Commission.

“This is quite unusual in a legal fraternity notwithstanding whether its the size of Australia or Niue,” he said.

He also pointed out that “counsels should have done a proper legal analysis of the annexed information in relation to the issue and should have led to the conclusion that it assisted not the application under section 85 unless these were instances with the said constituencies.”

Another failure he noted was the absence of “specific evidence to support a general statement, is a real concern that was not to be expected from an ancient profession.”

He said the voice of the legal fraternity is very important in a political environment.

“In a volatile political climate, the independence and sound voice of the legal fraternity is crucial to overcome legal uncertainty and clarify processes in a situation where every  individual with or without legal training seems to have an opinion about the law,” he said.

Lawyers are humans but they “must rise above emotions, loyalties, biases, talking points, innuendos and hyperbole’s to provide sound legal advise in order for people to make sound and prudent choices,” he said.

“This is telling especially  on the issues as to whether the application was frivolous and/or vexatious given the First Respondent  has already filed for costs of which the Applicants are given the opportunity to respond, and the application deposit shall be withheld for now until determination of the issues of cost.

The Electoral Commissioner, Toleafoa Tuiafelolo Stanley keeping the public and country posted on the progress of the vote count through regular press and media briefings.

No evidence of OEC’s  incompetence  
Judge Schuster also highlighted in his decision that he could not find any evidence accusing the Office of the Electoral Office (OEC) of biasness or incompetence.

“I find that there was no evidence  of electoral officers bias, incompetence or negligence in conducting the election on polling day as well as pre-polling,” said Judge Schuster.

“I also find that there is no evidence that the systemic issues raised affected the result of the election in Fa’asalelelaga 5. This application based on the evidence had no prospect of success notwithstanding the margin of votes between the Applicant and the First Respondent,” he said.

“I certify that the declaration by the Second Respondent (OEC) on the 5th September 2025 of the number of votes received by the First Respondent and Applicants were correct and accurate declaring the First Respondent the successful candidate for Fa’asalelelaga 5.”

Ms. Muriel Lui represented the First Respondents who were all FAST Party candidates.