Bias & favouritism allegations against Prosecutor withdrawn

By Lagi Keresoma

Apia, SAMOA – 7 September 2026: The bias and favoritism allegations against Prosecutor Leinafo Strickland have been withdrawn after the court found no evidence to support the allegations.

The allegations were filed by Faleata 3 Member of Parliament Lealailepule Rimoni Aiafi after Strickland decided not to appeal the decision of District Court Senior Judge, Talasa Atoa Saaga against Prime Minister Laaulialemalietoa Leuatea Polataivao Schmidt and 2 others.

Strickland was the prosecutor.

At the hearing of the case last Friday, presiding Justice Rhys Harrison told Leala’s lawyer Fuimaono Sefo Ainuu that evidence is a requirement in the heart of the judicial system then asked counsel for the evidence to support the argument.

“Where is the evidence?” asked Justice Harrison.

“There is no evidence, Your Honor,” responded Fuimaono.

“Then why are we here?” said Justice Harrison.

Fuimaono spoke to his client during the break and he applied to withdraw the bias and favoritism allegation and concentrated on Article 9 of the Constitution.

“Very responsible of your client,” said Justice Harrison.

Fuimaono then pointed out that his client is not only a victim, but his rights were affected by the decision.

“How is your client a victim of the decision?” asked Justice Harrison.

Fuimaono pointed out that his client was denied access to justice but Justice Harrison said that had nothing to do with it, then reminded counsel that Chris Lange, who represented the Attorney Generals’ Office had asked to strike out the complainant’s application.

Justice Harrison then referred to the charges against Laauli and others.

“The charges have not been proven. Where is this coming from?” he asked.

Fuimaono referred to how the decision was finalized and he believed independence should have been exercised in this, but Justice Harrison said prosecutorial work is for public interest.

He again asked Fuimaono to identify exactly his clients’ rights being affected by the decision.

“The right to consult on the decision not to appeal,” said Fuimaono.

Justice Harrison pointed out the right to a fair trial then reminded counsel that it never happened at the trial.

Leala was not on trial as he was one of the complainants and a witness.

Both Mr. Lange and Muriel Lui who represented Laauli and others took a similar stance in the hearing – to strike out the motion for a judiciary review of Judge Saagas’ decision.

Prosecutor decision not to appeal challenged
The decision by Strickland not to appeal Judge Saagas’ was the centre of Lealas’ application.

He applied for a judicial review of Judge Saagas decision and from the outset of the hearing, bias and favoritism were the key aspect of their argument.

According to his argument, the decision by Strickland not to appeal Judge Saagas decision was based on biases and favouritism and that she did not have authority to make such a decision.

Strickland has no authority to decide
Fuimaono then referred to Section 11 of the Attorney Generals’ Act 2013 where it states that the only person with the authority to make such a decision is the Attorney General or a legal officer within the AG’s office.

Justice Harrison asked to point out exactly where the Act says it has “to be a legal officer within the Attorney General’s office.”

Fuimaono argued that Strickland should have engaged the Attorney General’s authority to appeal or engage an overseas legal officer.

Justice Harrison noted that the Attorney General had outsourced the matter to Strickland then asked counsel about the situation if the Attorney General was the decision maker, knowing that she had previous political alliance to Laauli, would that support the bias and favoritism argument.

He then said that the way the complainant’s argument was framed was not helping at all.

Justice Harrison will deliver his decision when it is ready.