JAWS Statement Fails to Address the Core Complaint

Apia, Samoa – 24 November 2025 – The statement from the national media association of Samoa – JAWS says the temporary ban on the Samoa Observer newspaper last Monday was premature but fails to address the Prime Minister’s core reason that the paper failed to adhere to the media’s professional code of ethics.

In a nutshell, one of the PMs reasons for the ban, was the paper’s failure to make a correction, retract or apologize a story that was untrue. The front-page story was about a purported meeting that never took place between the DPM, Toelupe Maoiautele Poumulinuku Onesemo and the CEOs of Foreign Affairs and the CEO of the PMs Ministry.

JAWS rather sidestepped saying it did not have the mandate to investigate a complaint as that rests with the Media Council.

That is what JAWS Executive Member, Autagavaia Tipi Autagavaia told RNZ last weekend. But what he failed to clarify was that the Media Council has been defunct for eight years and is just in the process of being resurrected.

So JAWS saw it fitting to tell the PM that his ban was premature and should have taken it first to a dysfunctional Media Council and chose to stay mum on the Observers inaction to correct its mistake – a basic requirement of the Media Code of Ethics.

What’s problematic here is the perception by the overseas media that has been shaped based on half-truths and incomplete information. The Samoa Observer has been towing its own line as a champion of media freedom and an unsubstantiated claim their reporter was assaulted.

This is why the JAWS statement should have been more representative of the actual situation. It is more problematic as I have learnt that a more balanced statement was later tweaked to be the one distributed by a few of the Executive with their own agendas.

It means JAWS supporting the Observer’s inaction to retract or correct a story that was untrue is synonymous to JAWS supporting a lie.

Well respected TVNZ Pacific Correspondent Barbara Dreaver changed her stance when she was informed of the background and issues that led to the ban. It is important and fair to both the overseas media, advocacy groups, the Samoan government and the local media that the information is based on the truth.

The concerns from PINA, PIFF and the Fiji Media Association are all based on media freedom issues. The same ones we have all been fighting to protect over the years.

The issue here is very simple as outlined above. It is not as if banning the Samoa Observer has sucked the very oxygen that all the other media outlets still functioning in Samoa rely on to breathe and that we are all dead.

Quite the opposite.

The Fiji Media Association should advised the Samoa Observer’s editor to have and show some respect as I am sure he would not dress up like going to the Suva market to go interview Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka.

The other lady photographed at the gate of the PMs’ private home who claims to be from the BBC, should also adhere to the high but fast dwindling principles of that once respected media institution. With a supposed book on values, she should have known that – Fa’aaloalo – respect is highly held and central to the Faa-Samoa, our value system and way of life.

Media bans are nothing new to the media in Samoa. Barabra Dreaver was once banned by Tuilaepa when he was Prime Minister. Three senior journalists were banned at HRPP Gate after the 2021 general elections and despite being lured back, have never returned to cover HRPP events.

A few days after last August’s general election, an overseas journalist called me with a huge query. How come the FAST Party won so convincingly when it was indistinguishable according to the Samoa Observer coverage? he asked.

That’s the same question here. The international coverage is not accurately portraying the reality on the ground.

And that has been for so many years. The Samoa Observer had been trying for so many years to use its power to unseat the HRPP government.  The newspapers’ founder – Savea Sano Malifa – a colleague and close friend who we worked over the years to promote and defend media freedom, even ran for parliament against HRPP.

The HRPP Prime Minister and current Opposition Leader once called him a kid, the papers reporters as childish, green and all sorts of names.

But one thing that must be said is that the newspaper, with its Editorial Board now, aligns closely with HRPP. It provides context to the stories the ban is based.

But in today’s borderless landscape the media operates in, it is driven more by paid subscriptions, ratings, viewership and readership statistics as the basis for commercial return. So the stories have to sell.

This is the context that JAWS should have taken its position on this issue as it is not only for the media, but we as a country of free people.

We must not forget that freedom is within us and speaks to our history. Our forefathers fought, paid the ultimate price and gave that to us well before this day and age of daily newspapers and social media.

We must never forget that.