No Grounds for HRPP Motion to Withhold the District Development Project

By Lagi Keresoma/

Apia, SAMOA – 10 March 2026: There are no grounds for the Human Rights Protection Party (HRPP) motion for an interim injunction to hold the implementation of the District Development Project until certain issues related to the project are resolved.

This was the stance taken by the Respondent (Government) counsels during submissions in the Supreme Court today.

Central to the HRPP argument is the 10% of the budget allocated to the project and the claim of biases on the part of the Government in appointing only the Faatuatua I le Atua Samoa ua Tasi (FAST) members as Chairpersons of the District Councils.

They also sought for a judiciary review of Prime Minister Laaulialemalietoa Leuatea Polataivao Schmidt’s decision that only FAST members will be Chairpersons of the District Development Councils.

HRPP also argued that the One Government Grant (OGG) to assist schools development, should remain and implemented by the Ministry of Education until the court determines its decision. As a policy decision, the FAST Government has allocated the funds which amounts to $18.5 m tala annually, to be operated under the District Councils.

Respondent’s argument
Counsel for the Respondent, Ben Keith pointed out that the context of Laauli’s decision was how the Government goes about contracts on economic development and amendments to the original Project Operational Manual (POM), was for the advancement development of the District Development Project.

Keith pointed out that what HRPP is saying is that the Government is trying to change its policy on how the District Councils development funds are to be expended.

Chief Justice Satiu Simativa Perese noted that the policy content is on the ground and involves 10% of the budget which is a sizable amount.

Does the Chairperson have extra power?
The Respondent submitted that the Chairperson’s position in the District Development Council is to facilitate and control meetings of the Council.

Fuimaono argued that that is not the intention of the project, then cited a clause in the Project Operational Manual.

“It is more than just facilitating; it’s overseeing the growth of the project within the constituencies,” said Fuimaono.

Chief Justice Perese, however, pointed out that it is noted in the POM that the governing body of the project is the Council, not the Chairperson.

“The fundamental role of the Chairperson is to convene and control meetings, but decisions are made by the Council not the chairperson,” he said.

Fuimaono agreed.

“So, where does it say this extra power is given to the Chairperson that he/she determines something that the local government body has signed on,” asked Chief Justice Perese.

He then draws inference on what the Council might want which might be different from what the Chairperson wants.

“Whose views should be noted?” he asked.

Fuimaono agreed it’s the Council.

“That shows the Chairperson does not have any extra power other than being a member of the district Council,” said Chief Justice Perese.

Project Operating Manual (POM)
Fuimaono said the implementation of the project is the joint responsibility of the District Development Council and Chairperson.

Chief Justice Perese asked Fuimaono whereabouts in the POM reflects such instructions.

He also wanted to know why the Chairperson is responsible for the responsibility owned by the governing body.

“Because he is the Member of Parliament who was elected officially,” said Fuimaono.

“Where does it say that he/she has a level of responsibility as a Chairperson?” asked Perese.

Fuimaono referred to another clause in the POM that says responsibility belongs to the governing body.

Fuimaono said the submission is without clarity of checks of information provided in the POM and that there were some sort of prejudices in appointing of Chairpersons.

“MPs are representatives of constituencies, and something has to be said – such as recognition as a successful elected official and he/she should oversee the district,” argued Fuimaono.

He said within the Parliament jurisdiction, the elected official is usually the head of Government to oversee these projects and that MPs should be chairpersons.

Cabinet’s Decision – Faaiuga ale Kapeneta (FK)
Chief Justice Perese also pointed out that there are Co-Chairs and both the Chairs and Co-Chairs lead the project.

Fuimaono referred to Laauli’s interview on 25 October 2025 on YouTube where he clearly said only FAST members are selected as Chairpersons.

Chief Justice Perese then cited previous cases which highlighted the principles in matters on how policies are handled relating to national security, faith and legal matters such as fraud and how court handled them.

Fuimaono said he did not have time to read the cases cited but the question is whether there is authority to exercise the decision by the Prime Minister and the Ministry of Women, Social Development & Community.

Chief Justice Perese referred to the POM as a policy or regulation that guides the project.

“Is that the law?” he asked.

Fuimaono said it does appear so in the manual but not binding.

“Are you saying that whatever the Government says is the law?” he asked Fuimaono.

“Not necessarily, but it appears so,” he responded.

Fuimaono was asked how he sees the development project, but he pointed to the clarity of the Respondent’s submission, however he did not finish his sentence because Chief Justice Perese intervened.

“You are a former Deputy Attorney General, you know how these things are done,” he stated.

He then asked Fuimaono if he had sought assistance from the Cabinet for a copy of the Cabinet decision – FK which dealt with the issue.

“Did you ask for a copy? You as the lawyer carry this case,” asked Chief Justice Perese.

“No, Your Honour,” Fuimaono responded.

The court has reserved its decision but informed counsels that the decision will be delivered as soon as possible.