Court to rule whether it has jurisdiction to hear social media defamation case

By Lagi Keresoma/

Apia, SAMOA – 17 May 2026: The District Court will deliver its decision this week on two applications in a defamation case between two social media influencers platforms based in Australia and New Zealand.

The defamation charges were filed by New Zealand based Asiata Pio Vaoliko of the Tautai Ae program against the hosts of the Australia based Maota o Viiga online program hosts Toleafoa Saia Toleafoa and his wife Ainuu Iliganoa Savai’inaea.

The defendants have applied to quash the charges against them as a Samoan court has no jurisdiction to hear the case.

The complainant Asiata Pio Vaoliko is also applying to deliver his evidence from New Zealand via video link rather than appearing in person on reasons that he is the carer for his elderly parent with a serious health condition. Secondly, he also fears for his safety as online threats have been made against him.

The husband and wife hosts of the Australia based Maota o Viiga online program, Ainuu Iliganoa Savai’inaea and Toleafoa Saia Toleafoa.

Inherent jurisdiction & power of the district court
Defence counsel, Faimalomatumua Matthew Lemisio reminded the presiding Judge, Papalii Rosela Papalii that she had ruled on a previous matter on the inherent jurisdiction.

Judge Papalii reminded counsel that what she said was that the district court does not have inherent jurisdiction, but only the Supreme Court.

“What we do have here is inherent powers which are quite explicit so there are two different things,” the Judge explained.

Faimalomatua said that their argument is that the district court has the power to deal with matters that come before the Judge in any way the court sees fit.

“That is why we respectfully ask this honourable court to deal with this matter, because they have the power to decide whether it has jurisdiction, because none of the action took place in this country so therefore should be quashed,” he argued.

Miscarriage of justice
Prosecutor Magele Leone Sua pointed out that the most reliable point that the defence is relying on is that there is no jurisdiction for the defence to be heard by this court because of the interpretation of the word ‘abolished’ legally.

“We state that an application to quash under the Criminal Procedure Act can only be made if the information is to be held invalid or there has been a miscarriage of justice which defence counsel is not challenging,” she said.

She pointed out that the complainant lives in New Zealand but has strong ties in Samoa.

She also asked the court to consider the widespread impact of provocation online that reaches the Samoan community especially on the fact that people’s reputations are very important.

The question was asked as to what provision or power does the court have to quash information then she pointed out Section 28 of the Act.

She said the quash can only be done on the event that different counsels can prove there has been a miscarriage of justice.

The prosecution believes there is a miscarriage of justice for the reason that there has been no remorse on the part of the defendant by the particulars of the information.

She said there are no reasons for the defendants to claim their unawareness of the charges against them.

Judge Papalii intervened and asked prosecution about the material element presented of the defending occurring in Samoa.

Prosecution pointed out that the publication commenced in Sydney (Australia) and downloaded by any other person in Samoa and circulated it.

She asked the court to consider the widespread impact of the publication and reasons that the publication can reach through technology and the fact that once a person clicks on the link, it can be downloaded instantly.

Judge Papalii asked prosecution to submit any research based on their research on case covering Section 7 & 8 of the Crimes Act. END