Defendant in Falealili 1 contempt case recant statement that FAST hid them

By Lagi Keresoma/

Apia, SAMOA – 26 May 2026 – A defendant in the Falealili 1 contempt of court case, Malili Nofovaega has recanted his earlier statement that the FAST party hid them so they could not attend the court case.

On 15 May 2026, Malili publicly stated inside the courtroom that he and is wife Faamotuletia Sei wanted to attend the election petition hearing of the case between Toelupe Poumulinuku Onesemo and Tuiloma Laniselota Lameko but could not because the FAST Party hid them so they could not give evidence.

Malili and Faamotuletia were the two key witnesses the court tried to find and even issued a Departure Prohibition Order (DPO) on them.

Today, the prosecution reminded Malili of the statement he made about the FAST Party hiding them and what he meant by it.

Maili however said that he did not mean to say “hide” faalafi.

“What I meant to say was that we were misled – fa’asese but not hide – faalafi as I said before, and I apologise,” Malili gold the court.

Justice Leitaualesa Daryl Clarke intervened and asked Malili if he understood the meaning of the word “faalafi”.

“It means hide in a dark place…. o le faalafi i se mea pogisa,” said Malili.

Prosecution pointed out to Malili that first he said the FAST party “nana, then faalafi and now faasese”.

Malili admitted he was afraid – fefe and confused at the time.

Chief Justice Satiu Simativa Perese then informed Malili that lying to the court is contempt of court.

Throughout his testimony, he never mentioned FAST.

Defendant Malili Nofovaega’s wife, Faamotuletia Sei assisted by a police officer outside court.

Defendants absent from court due to wrong information
Prosecution continued to push the defendants to give the reasons why they did not turn up when the matter was called for hearing on 8 December 2025.

Malili said he and his wife came to court but met another person who told them that the matter had been resolved and there was no need for witnesses anymore.

Malili and his wife received court summons hence their appearance on 8 December 2025. However, rather than seeking confirmation from the Registrar or the police, they took the word of another person then left the courthouse.

When the matter was recalled on 17 December 2025, Malili said they arrived late and the court was already finished.

Prosecution asked if he saw articles and news items about police looking for them and he said “no”.

“We do not own a phone, and I do not have much knowledge about technology,” he said.

Prosecution asked where they were residing at the time police were looking for them at Tafatafa and other places.

“We were at Talimatau at our other home,” said Malili.

At the time the Departure Prohibition Order was issued on them around the end of last year, both Malili and his wife were spending the festive season at Talimatau before returning to Tafatafa early January 2026.

The difference in the verbal testimony and written affidavit
Prosecution noted that some of the evidence produced by Malili verbally were not in his written affidavit.

Such evidence included the 8 December 2025 reference where he said they attended court only to be told it was finished.

However, under continuous questioning by prosecution, it was clear that Malili and his wife never went to the Supreme Court room where the matter was called.

He apologised again and said that they never intended to go against the court.

Court denies further adjournment
Prior to Malili’s evidence, counsel for 30 defendants, Fuimaono Sarona Ponifasio asked for another adjournment so she could interview the defendants then make submissions.

Justice Clarke voiced his concern that another adjournment means the matter will drag on especially that the defendants have already submitted affidavits.

He reminded Fuimaono that the hearing of the matter was scheduled for today.

He noted that Fuimaono has stated that her clients have admitted to receiving summons and that was an admission to contempt, but the court wants to hear the reasons why they did not turn up.

He said that if the reasons are valid then that means it cannot be contempt of court.

The case continues.